I don't want books to disappear from the library and what this guy is doing does seem like a waste of public funds and self congratulating publicity stunt but Here's a few reaction blurbs from...
Exemplary
I don't want books to disappear from the library and what this guy is doing does seem like a waste of public funds and self congratulating publicity stunt but
Here's a few reaction blurbs from Goodreads about Identical: (excerpts begin, emphases theirs, formatting difficult to emulate)
That was a clue that perhaps this book was written for the shock value, and not entirely for tackling the issue. I know it's a hard issue to tackle, but I've read books with similar subject matters and none of them have left me with a book on the other side of the room and twitching. Shock value is not synonymous with tackling difficult issues. One of the reviews I read on Goodreads, that I can't find at the moment - if you find it, let me know and I'll link to it - called this book "trauma porn." At this point I am inclined to agree.
Special mentions: there are legitimately trigger warnings for everything in existence - sexual abuse, sexual assault, self harm, drug abuse, alcoholism, incest, suicide attempt, eating disorders (bulimia, binge/purge)
guys, I mean it, if you’re even the least bit triggered by anything I listed above, move on. I’m fairly well adjusted and even I had issues sometimes to be able to get through it. Like... shit is graphic, okay? Regardless of how good a book is, it’s never worth sacrificing your well being to read it.
id rather not be scarred for the rest of my life
Theres more I wanted to say but I have no energy to speak of this book any longer. I just want to forget this ever happened.
The book is just depressing and I don’t know why its necessary or what benefit it brings
(End excerpts)
Young Adult novels shouldn't be too graphic, and perhaps they need trigger warnings on the cover, and maybe a note on it that says read with guidance, or at least hey here's the number for Kids Help Line and you can talk about it with adults after reading it and it's okay to put a book down and walk away.
I would like Tildes members to remember that profit making happens on both sides: getting famous for destroying books and getting famous for writing books that get destroyed both make money.
And that having been part of an abuse survivor group, abuse trauma porn is definitely lucrative, and there are an unhealthy number of people who set out to talk to survivors and pretend to listen because they're digging for pay dirt to sell. Or they literally get off from it.
There is talking about difficult issues, and then there is graphically depicting it for shock value, and there are indeed sick people who profit from aiming to do precisely that.
Okay, so book bans bad, I get it. Can we discuss what kind of guardrails we should install for younger kids who are voracious readers? My kid started reading entire novels by three all by themself. We've run out of Newbury and classics and the likes ages ago: it's not possible for me to devote as many hours of the day to read as they do - what can the kind adults on Tildes say to prepare my kid for stumbling into this book or other ones written specifically to get buzz?
(Edited for formatting, typos, and minor self censorship)
Labeling is censorship and your (or anyone else's) opinions about what books should or should not do is orthogonal to the library's mission of providing access to books for everyone.
Exemplary
Labeling is censorship and your (or anyone else's) opinions about what books should or should not do is orthogonal to the library's mission of providing access to books for everyone.
Your second link provides arguments from two librarians on each side of the question "Is labelling censorship?" and the "yes" argument is not at all convincing. A couple of highlights: Lists and...
Your second link provides arguments from two librarians on each side of the question "Is labelling censorship?" and the "yes" argument is not at all convincing. A couple of highlights:
Many different elements may come into play: Perhaps the child is drawn to the book’s cover, or its artwork, or its main character. However, one factor that never enters into the “appeal equation” for a child is the book’s presence on a list of prescribed books.
Lists and labels are useful for finding things that have similar characteristics. Whether or not children find this concept exciting is completely irrelevant to the usefulness, and to censorship.
The problem is that a labeled collection creates opportunities for censorship.
So labeling isn't censorship, but can enable it. Ok? Having a home address allows the government to find you if they want to violate your rights, but if someone said "addresses are oppression" with a serious face... frankly, I would be embarrassed for them.
I'm really torn on this. I'm ardently against banning or restricting access, but I don't feel so settled on labeling. I want the labels! There are so many books out there, and so little time, I...
I'm really torn on this. I'm ardently against banning or restricting access, but I don't feel so settled on labeling. I want the labels! There are so many books out there, and so little time, I want to know what I'm getting into. I understand that it calls to issue who we trust to affix these labels, and I certainly don't want overly opinionated or intentionally prejudicing labels, but I also think it's impossible to be completely neutral without losing some very useful information.
You want labels that make sense to you, which is totally fine. I have nothing against 3rd parties labeling books, or even outright censoring them. For example, a queer book club could have a list...
You want labels that make sense to you, which is totally fine. I have nothing against 3rd parties labeling books, or even outright censoring them. For example, a queer book club could have a list of homophobic or transphobic books; this list is essentially a 'banned books list' but its also a really supportive tool to help a community feel more comfortable in what theyre reading.
Another example could be a service that rates books on how safe they were for people who have a particular phobia to read. Like if you're scared of snakes, don't read these books. Again this is straight-up censorship, if your fantasy novel is about talking snakes, they are going to tell their members 'do not read this'. But it's being done by a third party, not by libraries themselves.
And even some super right-wing group that lists books that are queer-friendly or have characters who sympathetically get abortions - also fine for them to tell their members "keep your kids away from these books."
What's not fine is when a library provides censorship directly through banning books or indirectly through labeling.
I strongly disagree here. Neither example is banning, and honestly I don't even agree that it's censorship. They aren't saying "don't read this book", they aren't punishing you for reading it, or...
For example, a queer book club could have a list of homophobic or transphobic books; this list is essentially a 'banned books list'
Like if you're scared of snakes, don't read these books. Again this is straight-up censorship.
I strongly disagree here. Neither example is banning, and honestly I don't even agree that it's censorship. They aren't saying "don't read this book", they aren't punishing you for reading it, or making it harder for you to get a copy, it or even saying they'll think less of you if you read it. All that's being said in both of these examples is "if you choose to read this book, this is the experience you will have." If censorship is something to which I can say "I don't actually care" and then read the book anyway no problemo, that's not such a bogeyman.
I was going to discuss the availability and access to third party labeling and how increasing access to information is the whole point of a library so drawing the line here seems arbitrary to me, and then circle back to those quotes that stuck out, but actually I think they crystalize my position quite well.
I'm against barriers to information, not road signs around it. I have zero issue with "if you read this, this is the experience you will have" coming from anyone. Especially if the source is obvious, but even if it isn't. It's simply more information.
I am uncomfortable with "you should or should not read this for this reason" coming from anyone other than perhaps parents towards their own young children, but if it is only advice and not an actual barrier or restriction, I don't think it's an emergency. There are probably a lot of examples that would piss me off, but as long as the reader has the resources and agency to ignore it, I think its at worst a bad look. It is also, when you get down to it, more information that can be ignored.
Banning or restricting access to books in any way is the emergency. That's the point at which it stops being information. That's the behavior which cannot be allowed. The strongest argument against the first two is that they can lead to the third, and that's a danger to watch for, but in my opinion it does not justify the banning if the first. That is banning the provision of information, which I am against.
I don't think I fully agree. I agree with the goals of the linked ALA blurb, but it doesn't seem very practical. Isn't putting books on the ends of aisles labeling? Or having a 'librarian's picks'...
What's not fine is when a library provides censorship directly through banning books or indirectly through labeling.
I don't think I fully agree. I agree with the goals of the linked ALA blurb, but it doesn't seem very practical.
Isn't putting books on the ends of aisles labeling? Or having a 'librarian's picks' table? Is putting a book in the YA section labeling? The children's section? What about verbal recommendations/labels?
It seems like the only practical way of achieving what they're describing would be an awful user experience.
This is kind of like pointing out that any decision making is discrimination but not all discrimination is illegal discrimination. Librarian picks or end caps for new books or books that meet a...
This is kind of like pointing out that any decision making is discrimination but not all discrimination is illegal discrimination.
Librarian picks or end caps for new books or books that meet a theme are not the same, no. Sections like Teen/Adult are usually based on information from the publishers but any avid teen reader goes to the adult section sooner rather than later.
The idea that you cannot be like "here are books for Black History Month" because it'd be the same as labeling for content warnings is absurd.
I agree, common sense dictates they're not the same. But here's their website: Encouraging users to access resources, i.e. featuring books in any way is not considered viewpoint-neutral. I'm...
I agree, common sense dictates they're not the same. But here's their website:
Viewpoint-neutral directional labels are a convenience designed to save time. These are different in intent from attempts to prejudice, discourage, or encourage users to access particular library resources or to restrict access to library resources.
Encouraging users to access resources, i.e. featuring books in any way is not considered viewpoint-neutral.
Directional aids can also have the effect of prejudicial labels when their implementation becomes proscriptive rather than descriptive. When directional aids are used to forbid access or to suggest moral or doctrinal endorsement, the effect is the same as prejudicial labeling. Even well-intentioned labels may have this effect.
I'm pretty sure the book list from any x history month would be disqualified based on what's been written here.
They distinguish here some of those distinctions. And here they talk about having collections and programs to reflect the community. I am not a librarian but I think that trying to find...
A rotating selection of books that fit into a themed, non-moral, non-doctrinal category is not the same as labeling all books by a value driven system.
And here they talk about having collections and programs to reflect the community.
I am not a librarian but I think that trying to find technicalities and gotchas is not a useful way with engaging with any set of regulations or policies.
Maybe every library I've been in has been violating ALA guidelines but it seems more likely to me that the guidelines aren't saying that these actions are in violation.
I'm not trying very hard to find technicalities and gotchas though, this is just a first reading of the clearly stated rules. I agree that rules-lawyering a set of regulations can be tiring, but...
I'm not trying very hard to find technicalities and gotchas though, this is just a first reading of the clearly stated rules.
I agree that rules-lawyering a set of regulations can be tiring, but there's also such things as bad regulations or guidelines.
Obviously, I have no problems with these kinds of things existing, I just think the policy as stated is not very good because like you say it puts most libraries into violation.
I did not say that it put most libraries in violation. I said that it is much more likely that this brief reading of the rules by non-librarians is probably incomplete and inaccurate.
I did not say that it put most libraries in violation. I said that it is much more likely that this brief reading of the rules by non-librarians is probably incomplete and inaccurate.
I don't mind disagreeing, just the misrepresentation of my words. I am operating on the assumption that the people who use the document understand it fine and neither of our external POVs are...
I don't mind disagreeing, just the misrepresentation of my words. I am operating on the assumption that the people who use the document understand it fine and neither of our external POVs are relevant.
Apologies for the snark, I've edited my post. I think that's a fine assumption but in my opinion it assumes an unwritten 'spirit of the law' type reading of the policy.
Apologies for the snark, I've edited my post.
I think that's a fine assumption but in my opinion it assumes an unwritten 'spirit of the law' type reading of the policy.
I think this could be one of those throw out baby with bathwater ideals if held on too tightly. The nightmare library where nothing is categorized because location and Dewey decimal and...
I think this could be one of those throw out baby with bathwater ideals if held on too tightly.
The nightmare library where nothing is categorized because location and Dewey decimal and availability and number in circulation are all labelling, so you walk in and a random collection is picked by an impartial algorithm and dispensed into a black bag for you, lest you holding a book becomes a temptation for others, and you gtfo.
I kid of course but ideals pursued to the extreme always become inhuman friendly.
You’re not wrong, but I definitely want some censorship for my young children. I am happy to slow their intellectual development a little to ensure healthy emotional development.
You’re not wrong, but I definitely want some censorship for my young children. I am happy to slow their intellectual development a little to ensure healthy emotional development.
Certainly, and there is no issue with you checking out some books but not others for your kids to read. Indeed, sites like "does the dog die" or others that provide information about possible...
Certainly, and there is no issue with you checking out some books but not others for your kids to read. Indeed, sites like "does the dog die" or others that provide information about possible content warnings, cultural awareness that the reader should have, etc, are great and I'm glad they exist. But they're not providing both the labeling and the availability at the same time.
The problem arises only when the source of books, i.e. the library, engages in its own labeling. Because once a library is labeling, readers can't escape them regardless of what they agree or disagree with.
I thinks i see your point, that even if there is valid parental concern and even if they are useful aides, labels, including well meaning warnings and heads-up, should not be done by librarians....
I thinks i see your point, that even if there is valid parental concern and even if they are useful aides, labels, including well meaning warnings and heads-up, should not be done by librarians. By other interest sites and parents and other "opt in" entities sure, but not at the library. Is that right?
Prejudicial labeling systems assume that the libraries have the institutional wisdom to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate for its users to access. They presuppose that individuals must be directed in making up their minds about the ideas they examine. (ALA linked earlier)
I actually disagree with this take but I don't have a degree in library studies and I'm not the ALA. I actually do think they have more institutional wisdom than I do about what is and is not appropriate, and I do believe that we all start off with less wisdom than the collective wisdom of all, and each of us were indeed directed to making up our minds during our formative years.
And anyway, even without labels, librarians already engage in some kind of access and value assignment by the nature of its existence. These are all good and necessary things:
Libraries make purchasing decisions for their catalog: they are the keepers of availability or non existence in the catalog.
Some other people who stock the digital collection and negotiate for licenses also make these choices.
They make the call on number of copies to order (hence how long the wait list becomes)
They facilitate book clubs on select books, advertise them, host space for discussions on some but obviously not all books.
In a physical library the librarians always have the ability to, and frequently do, display "recommended reads" or "theme month" reads in extremely prominent places. Is that not also labelling?
They also get to decide when a book should be retired out of collection, and when they go into (basement vault) archive, which is one big extra step necessary before someone specifically requesting the book can even read it.
They get to determine what goes into which section (children, teens, older teens, adult) - sometimes entire building away or upstairs or downstairs away - this is the most physical form of labelling aside from not purchasing them outright.
Readers cannot escape these mechanisms whether we agree with or disagree with them. Not automatically: libraries do in fact accept requests for orders, they facilitate book clubs for controversial subjects and books if there is interest, and they're pretty wonderful about accepting suggestions in general. But my point is that libraries are by nature a source and a gate, and that's not necessarily good or bad, it just is.
Perhaps a compromise is, books which are seriously graphic in nature get gateloged slightly differently. I don't know what's both fair and good: I trust my librarians more than myself on this subject.
Yep, exactly this. And yep, it's true! They are counteracted in some ways by having options for library members to request books to be added to the catalogue, but for example having a "Columbus...
By other interest sites and parents and other "opt in" entities sure, but not at the library. Is that right?
Yep, exactly this.
And anyway, even without labels, librarians already engage in some kind of access and value assignment by the nature of its existence. These are all good and necessary things:
And yep, it's true! They are counteracted in some ways by having options for library members to request books to be added to the catalogue, but for example having a "Columbus Day featured books" section or an "Indigenous People's Day featured books" section is a place where the line can get really blurry.
There's always going to be some values assumptions and some censorship, and all we can ask is for librarians to be well trained in causing as little harm as possible in these ways.
This is a really interesting point and makes me think of the blurriness between labeling and curation. That's only further muddled as you say by the fact that libraries serve multiple needs: such...
And yep, it's true! They are counteracted in some ways by having options for library members to request books to be added to the catalogue, but for example having a "Columbus Day featured books" section or an "Indigenous People's Day featured books" section is a place where the line can get really blurry.
This is a really interesting point and makes me think of the blurriness between labeling and curation. That's only further muddled as you say by the fact that libraries serve multiple needs: such as being a generally unbiased repository of information while also providing expertise and guidance to people trying to navigate that repository.
I mean that’s true in an ultimate sense. But I don’t have time to read every book, and i can think of few institutions I trust more than public libraries to delegate curation.
I mean that’s true in an ultimate sense. But I don’t have time to read every book, and i can think of few institutions I trust more than public libraries to delegate curation.
You and I both, but I think I turned out the better for it looking back on it now. I'm sure it would be frowned upon these days, in some circles. King was (is?) a writer plagued by substance abuse...
You and I both, but I think I turned out the better for it looking back on it now.
I'm sure it would be frowned upon these days, in some circles.
King was (is?) a writer plagued by substance abuse and psychological issues but I don't think that invalidates his output or makes his his work any the less for it.
Plenty of artists have issues and make art despite or in spite of it.
King was an alcoholic in the 70's and 80's for sure. I forget when he cleaned up exactly, but I'm about 99% sure he's remained clean after he got hit by that car in the 90's. Addiction is a...
King was an alcoholic in the 70's and 80's for sure. I forget when he cleaned up exactly, but I'm about 99% sure he's remained clean after he got hit by that car in the 90's.
Addiction is a recurring theme in his books after all.
you asking me this is making me realize just how weird it is for me to use this phrase haha but the idea I am trying to convey is that if you have a vector space (sorry) of possible missions...
you asking me this is making me realize just how weird it is for me to use this phrase haha but the idea I am trying to convey is that if you have a vector space (sorry) of possible missions regarding people reading books, one axis might be "do we provide books to people" and another might be "do I have opinions about books." (it's really not a good metaphor) And the projection of one onto the other is 0, i.e. they're at "right angles" to each other, or "orthogonal."
Or in other words the fact that we should provide books to people has nothing to do with anyone's individual opinions about individual books.
Philosophy
In philosophy, two topics, authors, or pieces of writing are said to be "orthogonal" to each other when they do not substantively cover what could be considered potentially overlapping or competing claims. Thus, texts in philosophy can either support and complement one another, they can offer competing explanations or systems, or they can be orthogonal to each other in cases where the scope, content, and purpose of the pieces of writing are entirely unrelated.
My kids are a bit young for this to be something I have direct experience addressing, but projecting my general parenting philosophy forward to those years and reflecting on my own experiences as...
what can the kind adults on Tildes say to prepare my kid for stumbling into this book or other ones written specifically to get buzz?
My kids are a bit young for this to be something I have direct experience addressing, but projecting my general parenting philosophy forward to those years and reflecting on my own experiences as a kid in the early days of the internet, my best advice would be talk to them early and often.
If they don’t run across books that warrant difficult conversations, they’ll surely run across things on the web that do or things at school that do. I don’t think kids these days are sending goat.se or lemon party to their friends on AIM with obfuscated links, but there’s tons of misinformation, stupid ideas, and shock content on social media and the broader web.
It isn’t possible to wall them off from the world, so I’m not sure there’s anything to do besides talk to them candidly without shame, embarrassment, or threat of punishment.
Parenting is a super personal thing, so this is my perspective, but it doesn’t mean it’s more meritorious than other perspectives.
A recommendation thread for a child who reads above their age expectation is one many of us would likely contribute to. I was the same kind of voracious reader and graduated to the adult section...
A recommendation thread for a child who reads above their age expectation is one many of us would likely contribute to. I was the same kind of voracious reader and graduated to the adult section of the library at a young age.
I have access to a couple of threads on reddit requesting book suggestions for the same situation. I can message them to you if you are interested, but as I said, if you request suggestions here in a dedicated thread, people will likely help.
So here I am for the first time agreeing that books should get looked at for content. Damnit. People are the worst sometimes. I’m not sure if I got lucky with my kid- who’s now in college and...
So here I am for the first time agreeing that books should get looked at for content. Damnit. People are the worst sometimes.
I’m not sure if I got lucky with my kid- who’s now in college and doing great after some bumpy teen years, but for this issue I took a page from a family I looked up to, and I think it worked pretty well.
I should qualify, this was an only child with two super engaged but not helicopter parents. We worked very hard to keep communication lines open with our kid (“gifted” kid and voracious reader- the other parent is very smart).
We censored nothing. If they had questions, we answered them - sometimes with a warning, and sometimes with a preface opinion why something is problematic, but I never tried to keep them from anything.
That meant we had a conversation about the kinds of things that could be “bumped into” on the internet if they were not careful when they started getting online. It included the fact that some kids were going to get fascinated by that “forbidden” stuff and that wasn’t good to start chasing. We talked about how when they were older they would start keeping secrets from their parents and that was natural, but we felt like too many kids were racing to grow up because it made them “cooler”.
We talked as a family about how much we didn’t like how there were lots of things in the US that were really bad culturally that we didn’t agree with or participate in.
We gave them warning that these were things they were or are going to run into from time to time, and that we knew this, we didn’t like it, but just were not able to fully protect them as the grew up… but we were there to help any time.
The end result was our kid self-censored. It wasn’t perfect, but I can’t imagine trying to do it any other way.
This side of the “protect the children” conversation doesn’t happen enough, IMO. Parenting is just really hard, complicated, delicate, and time and attention consuming. With dual-income now the norm, of course parents need all the help they can get- it’s just I’m not sure the media shitstorm of “your children are in danger” ever engages in good faith in trying to actually help.
I hope this does just a little. Good luck parents, it’ll be okay if you’re engaged.
I agree very much. There is a challenge, though, to distinguish between shock profiteering and purging. Meaning writing, and reading, (and fully feeling) in all the horrific detail as a healthy...
I agree very much. There is a challenge, though, to distinguish between shock profiteering and purging. Meaning writing, and reading, (and fully feeling) in all the horrific detail as a healthy process of reclaiming power from a horrific experience.
I agree with you as well. Self expression through music, the spoken or written word, dance....these are wonderful ways for human beings to process our reality, to heal from them, to encourage...
I agree with you as well. Self expression through music, the spoken or written word, dance....these are wonderful ways for human beings to process our reality, to heal from them, to encourage others to heal, and to honour the unique (and uniquely horrific) experiences of others, whether historic, composit, or cautionary.
I'm reminded of the Body World science exhibits. We've all got bodies and they're wonderful and should be celebrated. And yet I also appreciated when our local science museum put up signs at the gate - not everyone wants to see exactly how the optic nerve connects to the inside of a brain, or the inside of a horse, etc. Maybe I do but not today. The museum is definitely trying to get people to come and see (it cost extra $$), but they're also engaging in mindful informed consent to provide context and information about what the exhibition is about.
When I pick up a book, I also want some form of informed consent about the world the author is painting for me, about the emotions and mental processes of characters who we are asked to care about, about their experiences I will be asked to share brainspace with forevermore.
Trauma dumping on friends and stranger is real. So too, potentially, does it exist in text form.
The challenge to identify between profiteering motive and honest expression is even more difficult. And perhaps not the role of the library: many books within its doors were written solely for profit, so much the better for all us.
I guess I don't want to see books gone from libraries, even if they're written by literally Hitler. Readers should be able to decide. But perhaps readers would like to be able to decide if today will be a kittens and rainbow reading day, or a life-alteringly heavy one.
If this article pisses you off, please see if your school district has any candidates for school board who support book bans. Then, see if your district has a chapter of...
If this article pisses you off, please see if your school district has any candidates for school board who support book bans. Then, see if your district has a chapter of teachers/librarians/citizens pushing back against it and join them. Book banners are winning because they're driven, whereas defenders are more apathetic.
What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? These people are the ones that scream "this is like 1984, " while pulling shit like this. Also, considering that the fucking sheriff did not know...
What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? These people are the ones that scream "this is like 1984, " while pulling shit like this. Also, considering that the fucking sheriff did not know what an graphic novel is, he should not be the one going around deciding what is appropriate for kids.
These people would actually have a heart attack if they saw what my local library teen section has in the manga selection, like the entirety of Hellsing and the first four or five volumes of Berserk.
My sister's novel is among the most frequently banned books, and she is part of the the Pen America lawsuit in Florida. The kind of stuff people send her is pretty awful, such as ... Saying they...
My sister's novel is among the most frequently banned books, and she is part of the the Pen America lawsuit in Florida. The kind of stuff people send her is pretty awful,
such as ...
Saying they hope she is raped like the character in her book.
One of the things I've learned is that there is real money and coordination backing groups like Moms for Liberty which definitely fuels the hysteria. It's bad enough when people get sucked into it because they are in an echo chamber or are looking for community and end up with a bad one. But to think that people intentionally planning this kind of thing -- that is the worst.
Yep, all these causes need is a single billionaire who shares their values. You can make an oversized impact with a few hundred members who get a million or two in funding for their cause. They...
Yep, all these causes need is a single billionaire who shares their values.
You can make an oversized impact with a few hundred members who get a million or two in funding for their cause. They can be the very loud squeaky wheel and they WILL get greased.
If they don't the same billionaire can drop a few million on advertising for a candidate in a local election who's for The Cause and try again when they are in position. They do this in counties where the average ad budget for a candidate is tens of thousands max.
The thing about Moms for Liberty, find one of the founders and her husband got kicked out of the Republican Party, because the husband was a important figure in that party, for having threesomes...
The thing about Moms for Liberty, find one of the founders and her husband got kicked out of the Republican Party, because the husband was a important figure in that party, for having threesomes with another woman but the husband had sexually assaulted the woman? Or is it another group of idiots? But the important thing is that it shows that they are hypocrites in the long-term.
I am really sorry to hear about what is happening to your sister, what a terrible thing to do. I do hope that her group wins their lawsuit.
Yup, the hypocrisy / cynical manipulation is terrible. If they actually lived the values they claim, I would probably still think it was toxic, but could at least respect their dedication to it.
Yup, the hypocrisy / cynical manipulation is terrible. If they actually lived the values they claim, I would probably still think it was toxic, but could at least respect their dedication to it.
As someone from a town with some degree of white supremacist history that often gets brought up online, this is completely irrelevant. Stuff that was going on 50, 70, 100 years ago does not define...
As someone from a town with some degree of white supremacist history that often gets brought up online, this is completely irrelevant. Stuff that was going on 50, 70, 100 years ago does not define the people who live there now, especially in towns like this one and mine which are literally 10x bigger than they were during these eras (although mine is also 10x bigger than Hayden is today). It gets very frustrating to constantly see "people from x are racist because they had sundown policies the better part of a century ago, decades before their population started to grow." And I'd be willing to bet a lot of other towns have similar histories that just haven't been publicized. It's a bit like saying America has the worst racial/ethnic problems because America is more willing to discuss its issues than other countries.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area in the United States that couldn't be fairly argued to have had a history of white supremacy. Some worse than others, certainly, but some places are...
And I'd be willing to bet a lot of other towns have similar histories that just haven't been publicized.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area in the United States that couldn't be fairly argued to have had a history of white supremacy. Some worse than others, certainly, but some places are worse than others now, and that map has changed.
I mean, redlining policies 50 years ago will have literally shaped the demographics of today. It's not a 1 to 1 thing, and it doesn't say that the people of today are racist, but it certainly had...
I mean, redlining policies 50 years ago will have literally shaped the demographics of today. It's not a 1 to 1 thing, and it doesn't say that the people of today are racist, but it certainly had an effect on the area.
Sure, but having more white people doesn't make it not surprising for the Sheriff to steal and deface books from the library as an attempt to push a book banning agenda.
Sure, but having more white people doesn't make it not surprising for the Sheriff to steal and deface books from the library as an attempt to push a book banning agenda.
Another funny thing about my library is that they have some volumes of Hellsing in the adult comic section, but not in its entirety, just the term section do they have it. And that they do have...
Another funny thing about my library is that they have some volumes of Hellsing in the adult comic section, but not in its entirety, just the term section do they have it. And that they do have some video games for consoles for both children, teens and adults. And in the teen selection they have Dark Souls 2 (which is rated teen). Which I find funny as hell.
I originally wanted to post a comment alongside the article, but was really struggling to put into words what I thought about it. I'll let the subject of the article speak for herself: Out of...
I originally wanted to post a comment alongside the article, but was really struggling to put into words what I thought about it. I'll let the subject of the article speak for herself:
“You can check out anything in here, no holds barred. You can be 10 years old and get anything on any subject,” Cochran says. “They can, at home, log online literally with three clicks and get any book from one of 28 libraries. It doesn’t matter if you can’t drive. Say you live in Athol and you want a book that’s in Coeur d’Alene [30 minutes away]. They shuttle it,” she adds, referring to a Bookmobile program (that is currently out of service) where people who are unable to find transportation to the library can get books delivered to them. “It’s parked right back there. They shuttle it. They shuttle it.”
Out of context, this seems innocuous- almost as if she supports it. There's a video in the article where you can hear her incredulously describe how a library works (including that portion), which gives a fascinating view into the mind of someone who wants to ban books.
The sheriff went so far as to remove the barcodes from the books he personally found offensive (after refusing the return them), which meant the library was unable to put them back into circulation.
I also really enjoyed (hated with my entire being) this part: It reads like a Mr Rogers segment explaining to preschoolers how the library works. It's so weird because they're trying to act like...
I also really enjoyed (hated with my entire being) this part:
Cochran also points to the checkout line in the library and explains to the Sheriff how books can be borrowed in person at the library, as well: “You take the book, you see where it says ‘Checkout’ right there? You take the book. Here’s the barcode of the book. You put it under that little wand right there next to that screen, you put the card underneath, click, you’re out. Three clicks and you’re out.”
It reads like a Mr Rogers segment explaining to preschoolers how the library works. It's so weird because they're trying to act like all of this stuff is insidious...which itself is insidious because everything they're talking about is totally innocuous.
I don’t know about book clubs, but there is definitely marketing behind it. Barnes and Noble in my city generally has a "banned books" section, as does the local book shop. I think some of the...
I don’t know about book clubs, but there is definitely marketing behind it. Barnes and Noble in my city generally has a "banned books" section, as does the local book shop. I think some of the used book stores have shelves for them too, but they might be a rotating theme with "banned books" being one of a few options.
A non-profit that I work with called Creators Assemble ran a program called "Blind Date With a Banned (or Challenged) Book" that was sort of like a book club. People would sign up, give us some of...
A non-profit that I work with called Creators Assemble ran a program called "Blind Date With a Banned (or Challenged) Book" that was sort of like a book club. People would sign up, give us some of their interests and we would send them a book that they could use for a book club. We stopped doing it last year due to lack of resources, but I'm pushing for us to start back up.
We could choose that as a theme for the book club here one time if people wanted to. I bet that there is such a banned book club reading group on Goodreads. They have many specific book clubs.
We could choose that as a theme for the book club here one time if people wanted to.
I bet that there is such a banned book club reading group on Goodreads. They have many specific book clubs.
I don't want books to disappear from the library and what this guy is doing does seem like a waste of public funds and self congratulating publicity stunt but
Here's a few reaction blurbs from Goodreads about Identical: (excerpts begin, emphases theirs, formatting difficult to emulate)
Special mentions: there are legitimately trigger warnings for everything in existence - sexual abuse, sexual assault, self harm, drug abuse, alcoholism, incest, suicide attempt, eating disorders (bulimia, binge/purge)
Theres more I wanted to say but I have no energy to speak of this book any longer. I just want to forget this ever happened.
The book is just depressing and I don’t know why its necessary or what benefit it brings
(End excerpts)
Young Adult novels shouldn't be too graphic, and perhaps they need trigger warnings on the cover, and maybe a note on it that says read with guidance, or at least hey here's the number for Kids Help Line and you can talk about it with adults after reading it and it's okay to put a book down and walk away.
I would like Tildes members to remember that profit making happens on both sides: getting famous for destroying books and getting famous for writing books that get destroyed both make money.
And that having been part of an abuse survivor group, abuse trauma porn is definitely lucrative, and there are an unhealthy number of people who set out to talk to survivors and pretend to listen because they're digging for pay dirt to sell. Or they literally get off from it.
There is talking about difficult issues, and then there is graphically depicting it for shock value, and there are indeed sick people who profit from aiming to do precisely that.
Okay, so book bans bad, I get it. Can we discuss what kind of guardrails we should install for younger kids who are voracious readers? My kid started reading entire novels by three all by themself. We've run out of Newbury and classics and the likes ages ago: it's not possible for me to devote as many hours of the day to read as they do - what can the kind adults on Tildes say to prepare my kid for stumbling into this book or other ones written specifically to get buzz?
(Edited for formatting, typos, and minor self censorship)
Labeling is censorship and your (or anyone else's) opinions about what books should or should not do is orthogonal to the library's mission of providing access to books for everyone.
Your second link provides arguments from two librarians on each side of the question "Is labelling censorship?" and the "yes" argument is not at all convincing. A couple of highlights:
Lists and labels are useful for finding things that have similar characteristics. Whether or not children find this concept exciting is completely irrelevant to the usefulness, and to censorship.
So labeling isn't censorship, but can enable it. Ok? Having a home address allows the government to find you if they want to violate your rights, but if someone said "addresses are oppression" with a serious face... frankly, I would be embarrassed for them.
I'm really torn on this. I'm ardently against banning or restricting access, but I don't feel so settled on labeling. I want the labels! There are so many books out there, and so little time, I want to know what I'm getting into. I understand that it calls to issue who we trust to affix these labels, and I certainly don't want overly opinionated or intentionally prejudicing labels, but I also think it's impossible to be completely neutral without losing some very useful information.
You want labels that make sense to you, which is totally fine. I have nothing against 3rd parties labeling books, or even outright censoring them. For example, a queer book club could have a list of homophobic or transphobic books; this list is essentially a 'banned books list' but its also a really supportive tool to help a community feel more comfortable in what theyre reading.
Another example could be a service that rates books on how safe they were for people who have a particular phobia to read. Like if you're scared of snakes, don't read these books. Again this is straight-up censorship, if your fantasy novel is about talking snakes, they are going to tell their members 'do not read this'. But it's being done by a third party, not by libraries themselves.
And even some super right-wing group that lists books that are queer-friendly or have characters who sympathetically get abortions - also fine for them to tell their members "keep your kids away from these books."
What's not fine is when a library provides censorship directly through banning books or indirectly through labeling.
I strongly disagree here. Neither example is banning, and honestly I don't even agree that it's censorship. They aren't saying "don't read this book", they aren't punishing you for reading it, or making it harder for you to get a copy, it or even saying they'll think less of you if you read it. All that's being said in both of these examples is "if you choose to read this book, this is the experience you will have." If censorship is something to which I can say "I don't actually care" and then read the book anyway no problemo, that's not such a bogeyman.
I was going to discuss the availability and access to third party labeling and how increasing access to information is the whole point of a library so drawing the line here seems arbitrary to me, and then circle back to those quotes that stuck out, but actually I think they crystalize my position quite well.
I'm against barriers to information, not road signs around it. I have zero issue with "if you read this, this is the experience you will have" coming from anyone. Especially if the source is obvious, but even if it isn't. It's simply more information.
I am uncomfortable with "you should or should not read this for this reason" coming from anyone other than perhaps parents towards their own young children, but if it is only advice and not an actual barrier or restriction, I don't think it's an emergency. There are probably a lot of examples that would piss me off, but as long as the reader has the resources and agency to ignore it, I think its at worst a bad look. It is also, when you get down to it, more information that can be ignored.
Banning or restricting access to books in any way is the emergency. That's the point at which it stops being information. That's the behavior which cannot be allowed. The strongest argument against the first two is that they can lead to the third, and that's a danger to watch for, but in my opinion it does not justify the banning if the first. That is banning the provision of information, which I am against.
I don't think I fully agree. I agree with the goals of the linked ALA blurb, but it doesn't seem very practical.
Isn't putting books on the ends of aisles labeling? Or having a 'librarian's picks' table? Is putting a book in the YA section labeling? The children's section? What about verbal recommendations/labels?
It seems like the only practical way of achieving what they're describing would be an awful user experience.
This is kind of like pointing out that any decision making is discrimination but not all discrimination is illegal discrimination.
Librarian picks or end caps for new books or books that meet a theme are not the same, no. Sections like Teen/Adult are usually based on information from the publishers but any avid teen reader goes to the adult section sooner rather than later.
The idea that you cannot be like "here are books for Black History Month" because it'd be the same as labeling for content warnings is absurd.
I agree, common sense dictates they're not the same. But here's their website:
Encouraging users to access resources, i.e. featuring books in any way is not considered viewpoint-neutral.
I'm pretty sure the book list from any x history month would be disqualified based on what's been written here.
They distinguish here some of those distinctions.
And here they talk about having collections and programs to reflect the community.
I am not a librarian but I think that trying to find technicalities and gotchas is not a useful way with engaging with any set of regulations or policies.
Maybe every library I've been in has been violating ALA guidelines but it seems more likely to me that the guidelines aren't saying that these actions are in violation.
I'm not trying very hard to find technicalities and gotchas though, this is just a first reading of the clearly stated rules.
I agree that rules-lawyering a set of regulations can be tiring, but there's also such things as bad regulations or guidelines.
Obviously, I have no problems with these kinds of things existing, I just think the policy as stated is not very good because
like you sayit puts most libraries into violation.I did not say that it put most libraries in violation. I said that it is much more likely that this brief reading of the rules by non-librarians is probably incomplete and inaccurate.
I'll agree to disagree then. If a brief document can be misinterpreted so easily, if it's even being misinterpreted, it's not a good document.
I don't mind disagreeing, just the misrepresentation of my words. I am operating on the assumption that the people who use the document understand it fine and neither of our external POVs are relevant.
Apologies for the snark, I've edited my post.
I think that's a fine assumption but in my opinion it assumes an unwritten 'spirit of the law' type reading of the policy.
I think this could be one of those throw out baby with bathwater ideals if held on too tightly.
The nightmare library where nothing is categorized because location and Dewey decimal and availability and number in circulation are all labelling, so you walk in and a random collection is picked by an impartial algorithm and dispensed into a black bag for you, lest you holding a book becomes a temptation for others, and you gtfo.
I kid of course but ideals pursued to the extreme always become inhuman friendly.
You’re not wrong, but I definitely want some censorship for my young children. I am happy to slow their intellectual development a little to ensure healthy emotional development.
Certainly, and there is no issue with you checking out some books but not others for your kids to read. Indeed, sites like "does the dog die" or others that provide information about possible content warnings, cultural awareness that the reader should have, etc, are great and I'm glad they exist. But they're not providing both the labeling and the availability at the same time.
The problem arises only when the source of books, i.e. the library, engages in its own labeling. Because once a library is labeling, readers can't escape them regardless of what they agree or disagree with.
I thinks i see your point, that even if there is valid parental concern and even if they are useful aides, labels, including well meaning warnings and heads-up, should not be done by librarians. By other interest sites and parents and other "opt in" entities sure, but not at the library. Is that right?
I actually disagree with this take but I don't have a degree in library studies and I'm not the ALA. I actually do think they have more institutional wisdom than I do about what is and is not appropriate, and I do believe that we all start off with less wisdom than the collective wisdom of all, and each of us were indeed directed to making up our minds during our formative years.
And anyway, even without labels, librarians already engage in some kind of access and value assignment by the nature of its existence. These are all good and necessary things:
Libraries make purchasing decisions for their catalog: they are the keepers of availability or non existence in the catalog.
Some other people who stock the digital collection and negotiate for licenses also make these choices.
They make the call on number of copies to order (hence how long the wait list becomes)
They facilitate book clubs on select books, advertise them, host space for discussions on some but obviously not all books.
In a physical library the librarians always have the ability to, and frequently do, display "recommended reads" or "theme month" reads in extremely prominent places. Is that not also labelling?
They also get to decide when a book should be retired out of collection, and when they go into (basement vault) archive, which is one big extra step necessary before someone specifically requesting the book can even read it.
They get to determine what goes into which section (children, teens, older teens, adult) - sometimes entire building away or upstairs or downstairs away - this is the most physical form of labelling aside from not purchasing them outright.
Readers cannot escape these mechanisms whether we agree with or disagree with them. Not automatically: libraries do in fact accept requests for orders, they facilitate book clubs for controversial subjects and books if there is interest, and they're pretty wonderful about accepting suggestions in general. But my point is that libraries are by nature a source and a gate, and that's not necessarily good or bad, it just is.
Perhaps a compromise is, books which are seriously graphic in nature get gateloged slightly differently. I don't know what's both fair and good: I trust my librarians more than myself on this subject.
Yep, exactly this.
And yep, it's true! They are counteracted in some ways by having options for library members to request books to be added to the catalogue, but for example having a "Columbus Day featured books" section or an "Indigenous People's Day featured books" section is a place where the line can get really blurry.
There's always going to be some values assumptions and some censorship, and all we can ask is for librarians to be well trained in causing as little harm as possible in these ways.
This is a really interesting point and makes me think of the blurriness between labeling and curation. That's only further muddled as you say by the fact that libraries serve multiple needs: such as being a generally unbiased repository of information while also providing expertise and guidance to people trying to navigate that repository.
The answer is simple: You are that guardrail. No two kids are the same.
By the time I was 10, I was reading Stephen King.
I mean that’s true in an ultimate sense. But I don’t have time to read every book, and i can think of few institutions I trust more than public libraries to delegate curation.
You and I both, but I think I turned out the better for it looking back on it now.
I'm sure it would be frowned upon these days, in some circles.
King was (is?) a writer plagued by substance abuse and psychological issues but I don't think that invalidates his output or makes his his work any the less for it.
Plenty of artists have issues and make art despite or in spite of it.
King was an alcoholic in the 70's and 80's for sure. I forget when he cleaned up exactly, but I'm about 99% sure he's remained clean after he got hit by that car in the 90's.
Addiction is a recurring theme in his books after all.
What does it mean for something to be "orthogonal" in that context?
you asking me this is making me realize just how weird it is for me to use this phrase haha but the idea I am trying to convey is that if you have a vector space (sorry) of possible missions regarding people reading books, one axis might be "do we provide books to people" and another might be "do I have opinions about books." (it's really not a good metaphor) And the projection of one onto the other is 0, i.e. they're at "right angles" to each other, or "orthogonal."
Or in other words the fact that we should provide books to people has nothing to do with anyone's individual opinions about individual books.
Orthogonality - wikipedia
They mean "unrelated"
My kids are a bit young for this to be something I have direct experience addressing, but projecting my general parenting philosophy forward to those years and reflecting on my own experiences as a kid in the early days of the internet, my best advice would be talk to them early and often.
If they don’t run across books that warrant difficult conversations, they’ll surely run across things on the web that do or things at school that do. I don’t think kids these days are sending goat.se or lemon party to their friends on AIM with obfuscated links, but there’s tons of misinformation, stupid ideas, and shock content on social media and the broader web.
It isn’t possible to wall them off from the world, so I’m not sure there’s anything to do besides talk to them candidly without shame, embarrassment, or threat of punishment.
Parenting is a super personal thing, so this is my perspective, but it doesn’t mean it’s more meritorious than other perspectives.
A recommendation thread for a child who reads above their age expectation is one many of us would likely contribute to. I was the same kind of voracious reader and graduated to the adult section of the library at a young age.
I have access to a couple of threads on reddit requesting book suggestions for the same situation. I can message them to you if you are interested, but as I said, if you request suggestions here in a dedicated thread, people will likely help.
So here I am for the first time agreeing that books should get looked at for content. Damnit. People are the worst sometimes.
I’m not sure if I got lucky with my kid- who’s now in college and doing great after some bumpy teen years, but for this issue I took a page from a family I looked up to, and I think it worked pretty well.
I should qualify, this was an only child with two super engaged but not helicopter parents. We worked very hard to keep communication lines open with our kid (“gifted” kid and voracious reader- the other parent is very smart).
We censored nothing. If they had questions, we answered them - sometimes with a warning, and sometimes with a preface opinion why something is problematic, but I never tried to keep them from anything.
That meant we had a conversation about the kinds of things that could be “bumped into” on the internet if they were not careful when they started getting online. It included the fact that some kids were going to get fascinated by that “forbidden” stuff and that wasn’t good to start chasing. We talked about how when they were older they would start keeping secrets from their parents and that was natural, but we felt like too many kids were racing to grow up because it made them “cooler”.
We talked as a family about how much we didn’t like how there were lots of things in the US that were really bad culturally that we didn’t agree with or participate in.
We gave them warning that these were things they were or are going to run into from time to time, and that we knew this, we didn’t like it, but just were not able to fully protect them as the grew up… but we were there to help any time.
The end result was our kid self-censored. It wasn’t perfect, but I can’t imagine trying to do it any other way.
This side of the “protect the children” conversation doesn’t happen enough, IMO. Parenting is just really hard, complicated, delicate, and time and attention consuming. With dual-income now the norm, of course parents need all the help they can get- it’s just I’m not sure the media shitstorm of “your children are in danger” ever engages in good faith in trying to actually help.
I hope this does just a little. Good luck parents, it’ll be okay if you’re engaged.
I agree very much. There is a challenge, though, to distinguish between shock profiteering and purging. Meaning writing, and reading, (and fully feeling) in all the horrific detail as a healthy process of reclaiming power from a horrific experience.
I agree with you as well. Self expression through music, the spoken or written word, dance....these are wonderful ways for human beings to process our reality, to heal from them, to encourage others to heal, and to honour the unique (and uniquely horrific) experiences of others, whether historic, composit, or cautionary.
I'm reminded of the Body World science exhibits. We've all got bodies and they're wonderful and should be celebrated. And yet I also appreciated when our local science museum put up signs at the gate - not everyone wants to see exactly how the optic nerve connects to the inside of a brain, or the inside of a horse, etc. Maybe I do but not today. The museum is definitely trying to get people to come and see (it cost extra $$), but they're also engaging in mindful informed consent to provide context and information about what the exhibition is about.
When I pick up a book, I also want some form of informed consent about the world the author is painting for me, about the emotions and mental processes of characters who we are asked to care about, about their experiences I will be asked to share brainspace with forevermore.
Trauma dumping on friends and stranger is real. So too, potentially, does it exist in text form.
The challenge to identify between profiteering motive and honest expression is even more difficult. And perhaps not the role of the library: many books within its doors were written solely for profit, so much the better for all us.
I guess I don't want to see books gone from libraries, even if they're written by literally Hitler. Readers should be able to decide. But perhaps readers would like to be able to decide if today will be a kittens and rainbow reading day, or a life-alteringly heavy one.
If this article pisses you off, please see if your school district has any candidates for school board who support book bans. Then, see if your district has a chapter of teachers/librarians/citizens pushing back against it and join them. Book banners are winning because they're driven, whereas defenders are more apathetic.
What the actual fuck is wrong with these people? These people are the ones that scream "this is like 1984, " while pulling shit like this. Also, considering that the fucking sheriff did not know what an graphic novel is, he should not be the one going around deciding what is appropriate for kids.
These people would actually have a heart attack if they saw what my local library teen section has in the manga selection, like the entirety of Hellsing and the first four or five volumes of Berserk.
My sister's novel is among the most frequently banned books, and she is part of the the Pen America lawsuit in Florida. The kind of stuff people send her is pretty awful,
such as ...
Saying they hope she is raped like the character in her book.
One of the things I've learned is that there is real money and coordination backing groups like Moms for Liberty which definitely fuels the hysteria. It's bad enough when people get sucked into it because they are in an echo chamber or are looking for community and end up with a bad one. But to think that people intentionally planning this kind of thing -- that is the worst.
Yep, all these causes need is a single billionaire who shares their values.
You can make an oversized impact with a few hundred members who get a million or two in funding for their cause. They can be the very loud squeaky wheel and they WILL get greased.
If they don't the same billionaire can drop a few million on advertising for a candidate in a local election who's for The Cause and try again when they are in position. They do this in counties where the average ad budget for a candidate is tens of thousands max.
The thing about Moms for Liberty, find one of the founders and her husband got kicked out of the Republican Party, because the husband was a important figure in that party, for having threesomes with another woman but the husband had sexually assaulted the woman? Or is it another group of idiots? But the important thing is that it shows that they are hypocrites in the long-term.
I am really sorry to hear about what is happening to your sister, what a terrible thing to do. I do hope that her group wins their lawsuit.
Yup, the hypocrisy / cynical manipulation is terrible. If they actually lived the values they claim, I would probably still think it was toxic, but could at least respect their dedication to it.
Hayden Idaho has white supremacist history. This isn't surprising at all.
As someone from a town with some degree of white supremacist history that often gets brought up online, this is completely irrelevant. Stuff that was going on 50, 70, 100 years ago does not define the people who live there now, especially in towns like this one and mine which are literally 10x bigger than they were during these eras (although mine is also 10x bigger than Hayden is today). It gets very frustrating to constantly see "people from x are racist because they had sundown policies the better part of a century ago, decades before their population started to grow." And I'd be willing to bet a lot of other towns have similar histories that just haven't been publicized. It's a bit like saying America has the worst racial/ethnic problems because America is more willing to discuss its issues than other countries.
A fair retort, moreso if the [area] changes. I don't believe the northern Idaho area has though.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area in the United States that couldn't be fairly argued to have had a history of white supremacy. Some worse than others, certainly, but some places are worse than others now, and that map has changed.
I mean, redlining policies 50 years ago will have literally shaped the demographics of today. It's not a 1 to 1 thing, and it doesn't say that the people of today are racist, but it certainly had an effect on the area.
Sure, but having more white people doesn't make it not surprising for the Sheriff to steal and deface books from the library as an attempt to push a book banning agenda.
Your library sounds rad AF. Jealous!
Another funny thing about my library is that they have some volumes of Hellsing in the adult comic section, but not in its entirety, just the term section do they have it. And that they do have some video games for consoles for both children, teens and adults. And in the teen selection they have Dark Souls 2 (which is rated teen). Which I find funny as hell.
I originally wanted to post a comment alongside the article, but was really struggling to put into words what I thought about it. I'll let the subject of the article speak for herself:
Out of context, this seems innocuous- almost as if she supports it. There's a video in the article where you can hear her incredulously describe how a library works (including that portion), which gives a fascinating view into the mind of someone who wants to ban books.
The sheriff went so far as to remove the barcodes from the books he personally found offensive (after refusing the return them), which meant the library was unable to put them back into circulation.
I also really enjoyed (hated with my entire being) this part:
It reads like a Mr Rogers segment explaining to preschoolers how the library works. It's so weird because they're trying to act like all of this stuff is insidious...which itself is insidious because everything they're talking about is totally innocuous.
My mind immediately went to this post-9/11 PSA on cherishing civil liberties: What if America Wasn't America?
I wonder if there are any book clubs that only read banned or challenged books that people like this don't like.
I don’t know about book clubs, but there is definitely marketing behind it. Barnes and Noble in my city generally has a "banned books" section, as does the local book shop. I think some of the used book stores have shelves for them too, but they might be a rotating theme with "banned books" being one of a few options.
A non-profit that I work with called Creators Assemble ran a program called "Blind Date With a Banned (or Challenged) Book" that was sort of like a book club. People would sign up, give us some of their interests and we would send them a book that they could use for a book club. We stopped doing it last year due to lack of resources, but I'm pushing for us to start back up.
We could choose that as a theme for the book club here one time if people wanted to.
I bet that there is such a banned book club reading group on Goodreads. They have many specific book clubs.