As I was doing some research recently, I ran across an old newspaper article from 1999. This article suggested that, at least then, some people objected to the teaching of some of William Shakespeare’s plays in school.

It was a November, 1999 edition of The Savannah Morning News that told about a teacher at the Windsor Forest High School who required seniors to obtain permission slips before they could read “Hamlet,” “Macbeth,” or “King Lear.” It seems the teacher’s school board had pulled the books from class reading lists, citing “adult language” and references to sex and violence. Ironically, parent groups–who have initiated many book-ban attempts–protested the school’s policy, which also included the outright banning of three other books.

And this was not the first time for such action. According to a 1996 Associated Press article, Merimack, New Hampshire schools pulled “Twelfth Night” by Shakespeare because a woman dresses as a boy in the book. Similarly, have argued for pulling the sonnets, because (unknown to many), most of them were written to a male lover.

Shakespeare has been no stranger to censorship. As early as the 1600s, Richard II was censored. The play’s first edition had a scene that showed the deposition of Richard II, which made Queen Elizabeth so angry she ordered that part stricken from all copies. Also, a passage in Henry V featuring a comic character named Captain Jamy was possibly censored during King James I’s reign, while a reference to a Scottish lord was also removed from The Merchant of Venice. Finally, passages referring to Denmark in Hamlet were censored as well, probably for fear of offending Anne of Denmark.

FORTUNATELY, 500 YEARS LATER, RESPONSIBLE PARENTS ARE KEEPING AN EYE OUT, TRYING TO ENSURE THE BARD’S RIGHTFUL PLACE IN OUR CHILDREN’S EDUCATION.

I was shocked recently when I saw on Wikipedia that one of the most-banned books in the United States is a treasure by Matthew Hansen called “Beautiful Regard.” I guess it hurts more when it’s a book you’ve read and come to love. I want to save for later in this article the reason for it’s being banned. First, let’s talk about what the book is about.

As the title suggests, “Beautiful Retard” is about the mentally handicapped. Specifically, it documents in specific detail the challenges they face in getting through a typical day in the 21st Century. It’s a novel, to be sure, but based on the author’s experiences in dealing with persons with mental handicaps.

As for the reason it’s banned: According to Wikipedia, it’s because of the word “retard” in the title. Never mind that this is a word that has often been used to describe the mentally-challenged–and therefore is historically accurate. Never mind that the author clearly has only positive things to say about these people, and does not himself think of them as “retards.” We have become so politically correct in this culture that the mere use of a word that people actually use is reason enough to prohibit others from reading an otherwise-outstanding book.

Not convinced it’s been “banned?” Then I challenge you to try to find it. Look for it on the 3 big booksellers’ websites: Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Borders. You’ll find it referenced at Amazon, along with readers’ positive comments about the book. But the book itself is unavailable for purchase.

Meanwhile, over on the Borders and Barnes & Noble sites, these two mammoths in the book industry that seem to have every insignificant volume ever published don’t even have any hint that this book ever existed. So you better check out your local library. If the PC police haven’t gotten to them already, this might be your only chance to read a book that truly does a service to the mentally-handicapped community.

On this website, we’ll discuss scores of books that have been the objects of censorship all over the world. But we begin with a practice that through the centuries has come to symbolism censorship more than anything else: that of book-burning.

This practice, of lighting a large outdoors bonfire and burning books (and records and pictures) is more about the statement it makes than getting rid of the books. Just as flag-burning is seen as an anti-American statement, burning a book is a way of telling the world that this book is not fit for public consumption.

Wikipedia traces the practice of book-burning back to China’s Quinn Dynasty of the 3rd Century B.C. Originally, book-burnings were mostly conducted by political authorities in order to suppress dissenting views. Such was the case when Quinn ordered all philosophy books from other states burned.
Wikipedia’s claims notwithstanding, we should note that even before Quinn, there is an example of a government-ordered burning found in the pages of the Old Testament. Jeremiah 36 says that Judah’s King Jehoiakim took offense at words of Scriptures and had scrolls that were read in his presence cut into pieces and cast into a fire.

Another notable example, several centuries later, was a book-burning ordered by Theophilus of Alexandria. In the fourth century A.D., Theophilus ordered that the library of the Serapeum should be burned because of books that could stir up the citizenry. Also at Alexandria, at the famed Library of Alexandria, one of history’s largest wholesale book-burnings occurred around 640.

In later times, religious groups picked up the practice of book-burning more so than governments. Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible was burned in 1624, and Catholic leaders in 1787 burned a new hynn book that offended more conservative Catholics. The reason: the hymns were in German rather than Latin.

Book-burnings continue in the 20th century, although they are largely relegated to fringe religious groups or to Muslim countries.

We’ve heard about books that cause religious or political controversy being banned. But comic books? It’s happening more often these days. Perhaps the case that best symbolizes this practice happened about a year ago at the Marshall Public Library in Marshall, Missouri.

At the time, the library had about 75 “graphic novels” (a kind of sophisticated and larger comic book) in its collection. These graphic novels, like other novels, are placed in either the adult, teen or kids’ sections as their content warrants. “Fun Home” was one of the offending graphic novels pulled from the Marshall Library’s shelf. The book tells the story of growing up as a lesbian with a gay father. It was placed in the adult section.

The other book was “Blankets,” an autobiographical graphic novel about the author’s Christian childhood. This one, which portrayed Christianity negatively, was found in the young adult section.

A patron saw the books and filed a complaint. The library pulled the books, but has since formed a committee to evaluate which books are — and are not — appropriate to have on their shelves.

Of course, this is not the first time that comic books have come under fire. The problem in recent years, however, has been determining who a comic book is for. Traditionally, they have been seen as reading material for children. However, in the past decade, hundreds of comics for adult readers have hit the bookstores and libraries. Parents worry that their kids might consider them children’s fare. The answer, of course, is for parents to be more involved in the material they allow their children to read–not in censoring the books they don’t want their kids to read.

It appears that Harry Potter’s supernatural adventures aren’t that welcome among some parents. From the late 1990s until now, J.K. Rowling’s wizard’s books have been among the most challenged books, according to the American Library Association. And among children’s books, nothing ranks higher than the Potter adventures on the most-censored lists. Last year alone, there were 26 challenges nationwide, in 16 different states, to have Harry Potter’s adventures taken off bookshelves.

What is unique about Rowling’s books, though, is the reason for wanting to censor her books. Whereas it used to be that sex and violence were the number one reasons to ban a book, Harry Potter’s opponents don’t like the fact that his novels feature wizards and magic spells. They don’t understand that the books are fantasy–or at least, they worry that their children might perceive it as being real. Never mind that family classics such as “The Wizard of Oz” have long incorporated magic and wizards. Indeed, C.S. Lewis, a noted Christian, who wrote “The Chronicles of Narnia” series, sprinkles in magic, witches, and fantasy throughout the books. J.R.R. Tolkien, author of “The Lord of the Rings” books, was also a Christian, and despite the presence of wizards and wizardry, Christians have often seen spiritual metaphors in the series.

Of course, those books have the one thing Rowling’s books don’t have yet: time. Specifically, they have had enough time to prove themselves as classics. Perhaps in another 10 or 20 years, Harry Potter will also enjoy classic-status and be welcomed by all families who enjoy entertaining tales of right and wrong….even in a fantasy.

The Comics Code Authority is an organization whose chief purpose is to allow comic books to place the CCA stamp on their covers. They get this right after the CCA has determined whether the content of the issue is suitable for a largely youth audience. In the 21st century, this serves as sort of a guide for parents, to let them know whether there might be objectionable content inside. In the beginning, though, the CCA’s scope was quite wider. It was, in fact, a de facto censorship board for the comic-book industry. In the 60s especially, they were the arbiters of whether or not a comic book would be available on the comic stands. Spiderman, however, changed the CCA’s power forever.

Let’s back up and examine the CCA’s history. The Comics Code Authority was created in 1954 as a reaction to the publics growing concern about the “subversive” content in comics. Following congressional hearings into the medium, the CCA was created, and imposed numerous restrictions on the industry. Specifically, excessive violence, and “lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations” were forbidden. Also, they could not use the words “horror” or “terror” in their titles. And under no circumstances could a comic book talk about drugs or alcohol abuse.

Then along came Stan Lee and Spiderman. In 1971 in The Amazing Spider-Man #96-#98, Stan Lee created a story arc with an anti-drug message. In it, Peter Parker’s best friend was seen suffering the negative effects of drugs. Lee was informed that the story arc could not be published. The writer’s argument was that this story did not portray drugs in a positive light, but showed their negative effects. The CCA was unmoved. So Marvel Comics made a bold move: They published the issues without the coveted CCA seal. The story arc had fantastic sales, and received critical and fan approval.

Soon after, DC followed suit, showing Speedy (sidekick to Green Arrow) with a heroin habit. This took the Spiderman story a step further, because they actually identified the drug.

Soon after these issues, the CCA modified their requirements to allow the depiction of drug use as a “vicious habit.”

Today, the CCA continues to exist….but not with the power they once wielded. Today they serve as sort of a “parent’s friend,” to help them monitor the content of their children’s reading material.

If you’ve studied the subject of banned books, you’ve doubtless heard of something called The Anarchist Cookbook, by William Powell. Although it’s difficult in a free society to find a truly government-banned book, this one truly is not allowed at many state-run libraries in the United States. What’s more, the author himself, William Powell, wants it that way, and would prefer that the book stay out of print.

The book was written during the late 1960s after the author graduated from high school. Powell was involved in the anti-Vietnam-War movement and started the research for a book on how to get attention by causing massive chaos in the country. In the book are recipes for creating bombs, acids, and other materials to cause harm to human life. On the Amazon.com site for his book, the author recently wrote:

“The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this.
Apparently in recent years, The Anarchist Cookbook has seen a number of ‘copy cat’ type publications, some with remarkably similar titles (Anarchist Cookbook II, III etc). I am not familiar with these publications and cannot comment upon them. I can say that the original Anarchist Cookbook has not been revised or updated in any way by me since it was first published….Unfortunately, the book continues to be in print and with the advent of the Internet several websites dealing with it have emerged. I want to state categorically that I am not in agreement with the contents of The Anarchist Cookbook and I would be very pleased (and relieved) to see its publication discontinued. I consider it to be a misguided and potentially dangerous publication which should be taken out of print.”

Incidentally, I researched several websites with a similar name: some variation of “The Anarchist Cookbook.” Most of them are pitiful attempts to capitalize on the name of the original in appealing to people who still possess a desire to overthrow the government.