So, I was trying to be reasonable.

I was trying to have a reasonable conversation with the Plan2Succeed people, but it just isn't going to work out:

Leila, let's assume for the sake of argument there is a book written in a way that everyone agrees is entirely inappropriate for children -- the subject matter could be anything. Let's further assume that children who have had access to this book have all, without exception, had their lives or the lives of others significantly destroyed. I know of no book like that. This is just an assumption for this hypothetical. Let's also assume it is legal to keep children from reading such material. Would you then agree that such books if found in public libraries including school libraries should be kept away from children. Why or why not? Explain.

As a librarian, it isn't my job to pass judgment on what other people check out or on what other people read.  If someone wants to read V. C. Andrews, I'm not going to say, "No.  You can't take that because V. C. Andrews is crappy."  If someone asks me my opinion about V. C. Andrews, that's different.

What people read is their own business.  If a parent doesn't want their kid reading about certain things, it's up to the parent to police that.  Not the librarian.

If there was a book out there that "everyone agree[d] [wa]s entirely inappropriate for children", then it wouldn't be in the children's section, would it?  The problem is that everyone has a different opinion about what is appropriate.  My father gave me a book by Charlie Bukowski when I was in middle school--an author that few people would give to a young person.  But he knew that I was ready for it and that I would get a lot out of it.  (I did, by the way.  Still love that book).    

There are loads of books in the children's room that I can't stand for various reasons.  But that doesn't mean that I'd try to keep other people's kids from reading them.

Comments

[Chrissy]

At this point I would ignore them Leila. It was highly inappropriate for this group to post on your PERSONAL blog which serves only to track your opinions and your reading habits and keep your personal friends updated about said topics. I can't fathom what their agenda was in contacting you, and indirectly your circle of librarian, ex-bookstore clerk, teacher, etc. friends.

We will not agree with them. They will not agree with us. It is a pointless waste of time and space to continue these discussions to no forseeable end. While it may be fascinationg to hear the other side's point of view, I worry that it may detract from the ligtheartedness of this blog and freedom to express your own opinions on YOUR own blog if these unsolicited debates continue. Perhaps another venue would be better?

Just my two cents, of course.

[leila]

Well, I did post about them first...

I don't have an issue with them posting here--it's a public site, so they have every right to be here. Judging from the stats, there are plenty of people that visit without commenting. If I throw my opinion out there, I have to expect to hear from people that don't agree, right?

I just find it difficult to argue/debate with someone who, to me, makes no sense at all. We're (me & that group) just so totally coming from such different mindsets that we probably both think that the other is crazy.

I would assume that most people that come here regularly are, for the most part, in agreement about the censorship issue. So I'll try not to preach to the choir too much. (But sometimes, it's just SO HARD).

I do very much agree that we aren't going to reach any sort of compromise on the subject. But at least it hasn't turned into an all-out flame-war or anything.

[Chrissy]

I understand. My point is more we have a political group arguing with an individual. It would be like the Rebublican party seeking out and debating with someone they saw with a "Bush Sucks" bumpersticker by walking into their home.

And yes, by nature of this blog most people who come here do agree with your point of view, mainly because the easiest way to find this blog is for you to give the information out personally. It's not like you come up in anti-censorship Google searches. Since this lends a certain amount of privacy to you and selection as to who reads this blog it smacks of 'trolling' when a group with vastly differing opinions seeks you out and posts on your blog. It is a blog, it is not a website with forums.

I appreciate their opinions and they have been very polite. I simply just do not agree that this is the correct place for their debate. I worry that it will degrade into a flame war, despite efforts against such a thing.

[C.C.]

Plus, let's face it--it's boring. Debates between the immovable object and the irresitable force can be entertaining and enlightening (viz. the Daily Show) but only if one is dealing with actual people. As Chrissy points out, people debating an organization is a paradox. In fact, I think we should cut it out for fear that we might all implode from the ontological self-contradiction.

[leila]

Yep. I just get all paranoid that if I don't answer, they'll think that I'm conceding a point or something. You know? But, yes, it is boring. Because they aren't going to budge and I'm not going to budge. Lame.

Remember the lady who told us that we shouldn't sell books on astrology at the Monkey, because astrology wasn't a "real science"? Or the lady that wanted us to drop Tintin in America because it wasn't PC?

(There wasn't a real connection there, just a train of thought...)

[C.C.]

It's funny, I had to be the "boss" this summer at the Institute (which I totally hated) and pondering my misery came to the conclusion that bossiness is the main problem in the world, and that only people who HATE being the boss are actually fit be the boss. Oh the paradoxes of human nature.

Who'da thought Plato was actually right about the philosopher king?