Free societies read freely + 5 bad-a$$ banned books

Few things on this Earth drive me to action and rage like hearing a book has been banned. I'm sure the web of psychological reasons for this would take digging up Freud himself to answer, but in any case, one axiom of mine is this: no book should be banned by any government agency. Ever. I'll give you a head's up and say—I'm going to be a lot sassier than usual today.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!?! (*clutches pearls*) Ah. That old chestnut. I'll come back to this in a minute.

Human beings have been banning books since they were printed. By the way, go ahead and take a look throughout history and find an instance where those human beings ended up being who we now view as "The Good Guys."

Go on. I'll wait.

If your world view and ideology are so weak that oppositional text is such an enormous threat: you need a better set of ideas.

OK, but what about the children? Well, to start, I'm not telling a private bookseller where to put its books. If a seller wants to put the smutty, violent, 'scary' books up high, or in an adults-only section, be my guest, you're free to do that.

Now—as we all know (or we all should know) the First Amendment only restricts the government from suppressing free speech, which is a qualified right under the constitution. So, that's right, this means government-funded libraries won't be able to enact the same restrictions as private booksellers. So what. You're a grown-up. Don't take your kid to those places if you're so worried they'll find a book with violence or 🌽.

From a legal perspective, much by way of First Amendment case review is dictated by balancing the benefits versus the risks of implementing a specific policy. So, let's take an example from Florida.

The Department of Education in Florida banned The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison; ubiquitously acknowledged as a modern classic and one of the seminal works of the 20th-century. The reason for this is that the book contains 'sexually explicit content' as the scenes include sexual assault (SA) on a child.

I've read this book, and while it does contain explicit SA, I would argue the text is not sexually explicit. I have read a lot of sexually explicit books, as I discuss in an earlier post. The scenes in The Bluest Eye are not sexual. They describe abuse. If you think that a scene where a child is abused is sexual/sexy, you need a therapist and to separate yourself from society until you no longer feel that way.

How about this passage?

And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Pretty sexual (and creepy), right?

Yeah, that's from the Book of Genesis. Here's a list of 29 of the craziest sex scenes in The Bible. But nobody trying to ban The Bluest Eye is also pushing to ban the The Bible as well. I'll note a group in Florida is trying to ban the Bible, but they're doing it in a contrarian way to show how the book ban justifications are full of hypocrisy.

For the record: I don't think the Bible should be banned anywhere, but I also don't think any book should be banned anywhere.

So: if a cold description of abuse on a child is too sexual for a school district, why is The Bible not? It must not be the sexual part, then, or the agency, school board, etc. would apply this justification evenly. So, the next obvious reason is that Morrison's work is just too centered on the hard truths about life for a Black girl in 1940s America.

So what are we balancing here? We're not banning all books with sexual or SA-related content, but we're banning some? You can't even really do the balancing test of risks versus benefits of banning if the bases are not consistently applied.

The Trump Administration just announced a list of books its banned from all schools run by the Department of the Defense. For the record—DOD schools are generally some of the highest performing schools in the country.

Here are a few of the books on the list:

-Brave New World by Alduous Huxley

-The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

-Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance (this one sends me)

There are, of course, others on the DOD list, like books about transgender people and soldiers, the general idea of being Black in America, and a kid's book about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. None of these are particularly sexy either. *eyeroll*

So what IS the justification?

IMHO: fear and fragility.

I guess your ideas are so fragile, and works of fiction and biographical details of real people are so powerful, they can blow your personal ideals over like a house of cards. See, mine are strong, rock-solid. I'm not afraid of the written word. Ever.

And because I'm petty, I bought five copies of each book on the DOD ban list, among other of the banned classics, and I'm dispersing them to Little Free Libraries around my city. Maybe I can't change the world, but I can get these books into the hands of people who deserve to read them.

Anyway, as noted, there are all sorts of dumb reasons to ban books. So here are five really amazing novels that have shown up on a banned list in the recent past.

Quick side note: there are some Very Important Works of Literature that are total 5/5 stunners that have been banned, but I've not including the obvious ones here (e.g., Handmaid's Tale, 1984, Animal Farm, To Kill A Mockingbird). Rather, I wanted to share some more contemporary examples and also stories that range in genre. Here also is a great list of famous books banned throughout history and why.

Book Reviews

'The Hate U Give,' by Angie Thomas
Rating: 5/5
Genre: Literary Realism
"Reasons" for Ban: profanity, anti-police message
Super Short Synopsis: A 16-year-old Black girl lives in a predominantly Black neighborhood, but attends a predominantly white school on scholarship. She attends a party in her neighborhood when a gun is pulled. A friend, Khalil, offers to drive her home, but the two are pulled over and Khalil is shot and killed by the officer. Anger over the killing incites protests and the girl reckons with her identity.

Review: I read this book years ago, and it was one of the first modern Black stories I picked up on purpose. I loved Starr, the FMC, immediately. Her ability to navigate the liminal space between her white school and friends, and her black community, shows a maturity level unmatched by most characters in fiction, let alone real people.

I also love the basis for the title, a nod to Tupac Shakur's acronym about how the mistreatment of black children creates the conditions for the thug life: The Hate U Give Little Infants F***s Everybody (T.H.U.G.L.I.F.E). This book made me a huge Tupac fan; he's one of the few people I'll read nonfiction about. If you haven't tapped into the poetic lyricism of Tupac, I highly recommend you do that.

The hardest part of the book is how real it is. You know it's real, even if you don't want it to be. I'll also add it's just an incredible example of a contemporary YA novel. Angie Thomas really strikes the right notes on Starr's voice. Definitely one to pick up if you're struggling to write like a teenager.

'A Wrinkle in Time' by Madeline L'Engle
Rating: 5/5
Genre: Fantasy
"Reasons" for ban: too religious (or not religious enough); mixes 'religion with witchcraft' or 'religion and science'; promotes communism
Super Short Synopsis: Meg Murray, daughter of two physicists who disappear, happens upon a very strange creature or two. Her brother, Charles Wallace, is kidnapped by inter-dimensional forces and she has to use her wits and physics knowledge to find him.

Review: This was a childhood favorite of mine, I read the whole series when I was 10. I've picked it up to reread twice in my adult life and it stands up.

This series is just great fantasy. It's not didactic at all. It's very imaginative, the world and universe (and multiverse) we're dealing with is unique and brand-new. For me, this book was about a strong, smart girl--and when I was a kid, I had the smart part down, but the strong part I was working on and often failing at achieving. I love how Engle incorporates the physics known at the time (which is basically the physics we know now--few scientific discoveries on this point have been made since the series was written).

I also think the sibling love in this is really special. You don't often see this portrayal of love in fiction. Novels tend to usually focus on the romantic. This series was written in the 60's, and even though there is something like a love interest, it it's the focal point. The depth of the relationship between Meg and Charles Wallace is enviable.

'Out of Darkness' by Ashley Hope Pérez
Rating: 5/5
Genre: Historical Fiction
"Reasons" for ban: interracial relationships (!), sexual references, sexual assault, use of profanity
Super Short Synopsis: A Mexican-American girl and a Black boy fall in love in a small Texas town in the 1930's. People are mad. 🙄 There is a bombing, and it's blamed on the boy. The couple and the city reckon with this injustice.

Review: This is a hard read, it'll make you cry. As you can imagine, nobody is happy about the arrangement of these two super sweet kids falling in love ☹️. You'll feel frustrated on their behalf, rage even.

The author does an excellent job raising the stakes. The book's not just an even longer-winded version of Romeo & Juliet, there is much more to the story. And the 'sexual references' that are used as the basis for the ban are actually references made by white boys while they are harassing and threatening the FMC. Again, if anybody thinks that's 'sexy' well...go away please.

This book is a frank depiction of racial violence and the exclusion that minorities feel in American towns and cities. I imagine this is the real reason for the ban. This is definitely one of those books that confronts the reader with something they may not be ready (or willing) to confront, much like The Bluest Eye. But that is one of the great purposes of literature, and should be embraced in all of its glory for the myriad of reasons I rant about in the preamble above.

'His Dark Materials' by Phillip Pullman
Rating: 5/5
Genre: Fantasy
"Reasons" for ban: anti-religious; anti-Roman Catholic
Super Short Synopsis: A girl and her daemon (pronounced 'demon'), Pan, live as wards in the College of Oxford. They overhear their uncle talk about his discovery of something called 'dust.' She finds a golden compass that she can read quite easily, which is not usual. Adventuring ensues.

Review: Like A Wrinkle In Time, this series is just a complete fantasy banger. The universe is new, unique, fascinating. As a reader, you're very eager to understand it. The concept of the 'daemon' is very strange at first, but push through. It'll make a lot of sense once you get to it.

Much of the calling for a ban is based in the series' depiction of an organization called the 'Magisterium': which is a world-wide religious organization that has its hands in a lot of pots, including the government. They're seeking to keep the world order safe from scientific discoveries (by guys like Lyra, our FMC's, uncle) and to maintain the existing status quo. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on what this is in reference to.

Many say this book is 'atheist.' I disagree with that. While the book may well be anti-organizational, it's quite spiritual. If you make it to the end, please email me because I want to tell you my theory about why.

The story also has a bad-a$$ young girl pushing boundaries. My kind of chick. Lyra is one of my favorite characters of all time. There is a sequel where we meet her as a grownup and that is really wonderful too. If you're a writer and you want a master class on universe-building, pick this one up.

'Fight Club' by Chuck Palahniuk
Rating: 5/5
Genre: Literary Satire
"Reasons" for ban: violence, one sex scene
Super Short Synopsis: A guy lives a lame, milky life and feels like a loser. He meets a cool, hot dude named Tyler Durden who is very charismatic. Then he meets other dudes living a similar boring life, and they want something more exciting in their lives. The dudes start a fight club where they beat the snot out of each other, but then it morphs into more.

Review: I read this book before it was cool. Sorry, had to say it. Now that this asinine point is out of the way...

So Fight Club is often banned due to violence. I've got to note that The Bible not being banned for the same reason is straight up hypocrisy at its finest. (For the record, I'm very cool with The Bible, this is not a dig on the Good Book; though I am more into it in a "Jesus was the original hippy" kind of way.)

Chuck Palahnuik is the guy who invented the term 'snowflake' as it's used in this contemporary context. The men using the word are satirized as living at the height of male fragility, making the current use of this phrase very ironic. Chuck is also gay. So...again, I'll let you draw your own conclusions on how kind of funny that is.

Chuck's writing is weird guys, just a head's up. If you've not read him--and you SHOULD--just know this isn't going to be your typical narrative structure or even narrator's voice. But, if you liked the movie, which most people correctly do, you really should read the book because it's even better.

If you're writer, you should also read his writing memoir Consider This.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I've seen an uptick in openings via email, and also web traffic. Keep sharing with your friends please! Follow me on Instagram @having.written (even though I do really hate it, I feel like only a fool would ignore it completely if trying to participate in the book review universe). I'm also on BlueSky.

Have a great week and read banned books!
-Chelsea