Thursday, February 01, 2007
Left Wingers Ban Books Too
At some point every year, the local library association or somebody comes out with a list of the books recommended banned by some goofy group somewhere. Usually, the news is targeted to make Republicans and/or conservatives look bad. In fact, the latest hubub just this past month was about the Iowa authored "What's Eating Gilbert Grape."
But the book was eventually returned to the classroom...
Carroll district overturns ban on 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape'
C.R. schools drop 'Tom Sawyer' as eighth grade must-read
One can only imagine Ms. Elborg running down the hall waving the book over her head and screaming the warning about racial insensitivity to her superiors.
Maybe we should set up a committee of re-readers to go through all those classic American novels and make sure the tender minds of our youngsters can handle it.
I wonder if they're watching "Roots" anymore in classrooms.
-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.
But the book was eventually returned to the classroom...
Carroll district overturns ban on 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape'
(1/16/07) CARROLL, Iowa (AP) -- "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" was welcomed back Monday into Carroll High School's classrooms.It might come as a shock to some of you, but liberals like to ban books too. They just don't get the same amount of play in the media.
The Carroll school board voted to overturn Superintendent Rob Cordes' decision to ban the book from the high school's literature-to-film class. He ousted the book in November after parents complained that its sexual content was not suitable for teenagers.
The board voted 4-1 Monday to keep the book in the school's library and curriculum. However, students will now need a signed permission slip from their parents to read the 1991 novel.
"What's Eating Gilbert Grape" -- written by West Des Moines native Peter Hedges -- deals with a young man's experiences with his troubled family in the fictional Iowa town of Endora.
C.R. schools drop 'Tom Sawyer' as eighth grade must-read
CEDAR RAPIDS - Mark Twain's classic American tale, "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer," won't be taught to all the eighth graders in Cedar Rapids schools this year out of concern the book's language and racial issues might be inappropriate for middle school students.Considering that the book has been around since 1876, it's a wonder it hasn't been banned before. What kind of educator - sorry...secondary language arts facilitator - has to re-read a book that's been around that long and only now discovers the word, "nigger" in the text?
Copies of the book for all the eighth-graders had been purchased at a cost of $5,000, but three administrators on Jan. 10 pulled the text from the must-read list.
Ann Elmborg, the district's secondary language arts facilitator, said teachers last spring selected "Tom Sawyer" for all the eighth graders to read this year.
But Elmborg said she re-read the book in January and went to her supervisors -- Sandy Stephen and Christine Rauscher -- with her concerns. They elected to pull the book as required reading; other novels will be substituted.
One can only imagine Ms. Elborg running down the hall waving the book over her head and screaming the warning about racial insensitivity to her superiors.
In retrospect, Elmborg said, the process of selecting "Tom Sawyer" as the district's "common novel" was rushed, and her error, she said, was in not re-reading the book before the books were bought.If selecting a book available since 1876 in the curriculum is "rushed"...I shudder to think what history class is like these days.
"It was my oversight," she said. "When I re-read it recently, I discovered it troubling, not only language, but depictions of African Americans."
Maybe we should set up a committee of re-readers to go through all those classic American novels and make sure the tender minds of our youngsters can handle it.
I wonder if they're watching "Roots" anymore in classrooms.
-----------
-----------
Sign up to the new GregSays Newsletter. Weekly highlights, unique insider information and valuable extra content delivered right to the email address you provide. Your Privacy guaranteed.
Comments:
<< Home
PBS replayed a special on Mark Twain and his comments on two books, "Tom Sawyer" and "Huck Finn." Twain said they were actually anti-slavery, anti-religion, and anti-establishment commentaries. The special actually gave that interpretation. These should therefore be very popular amongst the liberals (besides the "n" word).
According to the class description posted on Carroll High School’s website, the purpose of the Literature to Film class at CHS is to, “evaluate how a short story, play or novel is changed for the film. It further states that discussion is a “focus of the class.” If this syllabus were adhered to, the majority of the classroom discussion surrounding What's Eating Gilbert Grape would logically be dominated by the vast differences between the sex-saturated book and its relatively tame film counterpart.
However, a CHS student was quoted in a Daily Times Herald article (“CHS Students Take “Grape” Fight to Net,” 11/22/06) as saying, “In class we never discussed those portions of the book. We only discussed those portions of the book that were meaningful to our lives.”
In what the book’s supporters would have us believe is a typical 27-day slice of small-town Iowa life, the reader is treated to 24-year-old Gilbert’s six erections, five occasions of masturbation, his reception of fellatio from a married mother of two, with whom he has been having an affair since he was 17, Gilbert watching while the local insurance agent has sexual intercourse with his secretary on her desk, Gilbert’s lustful obsession with a 15-year-old girl whom he is desperate to bed, and his 16-year-old “Born Again” sister having sex in the back of a hearse with the town’s 29-year-old mortician.
In addition to the incessant sexual references in the book, Gilbert repeatedly calls his mentally challenged brother a retard and uses derogatory terms to describe his morbidly obese mother. Another blatant theme is Gilbert’s disdain and mockery of Christians, which defenders of the book seem to have missed - or purposely glossed over - altogether.
This dark, hate-filled story ends with the Grape children burning down their family home to save their now-dead mother the embarrassment of having to be extricated with a crane. There is no happy ending, there is no moral to the story and there is no epiphany for Gilbert. In short, there is no redeeming literary value to this book.
If Peter Hedges’ story were put to film - as written - it likely would have received an NC-17 rating for its numerous, sexually explicit depictions, one of which is particularly lengthy and graphic, easily qualifying as porn. However, the PG-13 movie is almost completely devoid of the moral transgressions outlined above with the exception of Gilbert receiving oral sex from a married woman which is alluded to without nudity. It seems some clear-thinking movie producer, or perhaps Hedges himself when he wrote the screenplay, came to the logical conclusion that the gratuitous sex in the book would not be embraced by the general public as entertainment.
Those who fought the removal of this tasteless book from Carroll High’s curriculum and library did so for selfish reasons. For the students, theirs was an exercise in rebellion against authority. For the teachers, it was a condescending defense of their own poor judgement. (Maybe if the scene in which Gilbert urinated on his former teacher’s fresh grave had been brought to the forefront, they would have reconsidered.) As for the local press, it appears to have been about preserving Carroll’s image, even though one student remarked in her letter to the editor that the book was about “dead-end, small-town life” and the kids could “relate to this book.” (DTH, 11/24/06)
Sadly, the entire Gilbert Grape debate was a botched opportunity on the part of many adults to teach children, who rely on them for guidance, about striving for higher standards and choosing right over wrong.
Post a Comment
However, a CHS student was quoted in a Daily Times Herald article (“CHS Students Take “Grape” Fight to Net,” 11/22/06) as saying, “In class we never discussed those portions of the book. We only discussed those portions of the book that were meaningful to our lives.”
In what the book’s supporters would have us believe is a typical 27-day slice of small-town Iowa life, the reader is treated to 24-year-old Gilbert’s six erections, five occasions of masturbation, his reception of fellatio from a married mother of two, with whom he has been having an affair since he was 17, Gilbert watching while the local insurance agent has sexual intercourse with his secretary on her desk, Gilbert’s lustful obsession with a 15-year-old girl whom he is desperate to bed, and his 16-year-old “Born Again” sister having sex in the back of a hearse with the town’s 29-year-old mortician.
In addition to the incessant sexual references in the book, Gilbert repeatedly calls his mentally challenged brother a retard and uses derogatory terms to describe his morbidly obese mother. Another blatant theme is Gilbert’s disdain and mockery of Christians, which defenders of the book seem to have missed - or purposely glossed over - altogether.
This dark, hate-filled story ends with the Grape children burning down their family home to save their now-dead mother the embarrassment of having to be extricated with a crane. There is no happy ending, there is no moral to the story and there is no epiphany for Gilbert. In short, there is no redeeming literary value to this book.
If Peter Hedges’ story were put to film - as written - it likely would have received an NC-17 rating for its numerous, sexually explicit depictions, one of which is particularly lengthy and graphic, easily qualifying as porn. However, the PG-13 movie is almost completely devoid of the moral transgressions outlined above with the exception of Gilbert receiving oral sex from a married woman which is alluded to without nudity. It seems some clear-thinking movie producer, or perhaps Hedges himself when he wrote the screenplay, came to the logical conclusion that the gratuitous sex in the book would not be embraced by the general public as entertainment.
Those who fought the removal of this tasteless book from Carroll High’s curriculum and library did so for selfish reasons. For the students, theirs was an exercise in rebellion against authority. For the teachers, it was a condescending defense of their own poor judgement. (Maybe if the scene in which Gilbert urinated on his former teacher’s fresh grave had been brought to the forefront, they would have reconsidered.) As for the local press, it appears to have been about preserving Carroll’s image, even though one student remarked in her letter to the editor that the book was about “dead-end, small-town life” and the kids could “relate to this book.” (DTH, 11/24/06)
Sadly, the entire Gilbert Grape debate was a botched opportunity on the part of many adults to teach children, who rely on them for guidance, about striving for higher standards and choosing right over wrong.
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
