Post for librarians & other animals

[bunn]

This story in Neil Gaiman's blog made me chortle, and then go kind of bug-eyed.  It's about censorship prudery in the selection of childrens literature.

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Yes, I sort of hesitated about typing that: I wanted to give some description of where the link went without giving away the amusing bit.

'I am not buying this because it's aimed at the wrong audience/too old/too young/not relevant/generally offensive' - not censorship, agreed, and probably not something anyone would make a formal statement to the press about either.

'I am not buying this because it uses a specific word for a part of an animal's anatomy' - if not censorship - over-discrimination? Excessive pickiness? Prudery? Prudery, that's a good word. I am happy to call it prudery. Or dirty-mindedness, perhaps, only that term always makes me think of Steptoe & Son.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

It is excessive prudery. However, it also reflects how the Irate Parents think. Irate Parents tend to explode into fury about the presence of single words, rather than about themes and content, because to complain about the latter actually requires reading the book. I've received furious complaints about The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe ("because it has a witch in it" so is clearly anti-Christian) and The Subtle Knife ("because it has a knife in it" so clearly promotes violence.) The complaints that I'm aware of in local schools are the same.

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

I once got told we shouldn't be selling The Lord of the Rings, because the edition displayed had "a witch on the cover" and would therefore corrupt anyone who looked at it.

- Creatrix.