Skip to main content

Musing on the News - Book Bans

 

              Time published an article on 4/20 titled “New Report Finds That Book Bans Have Reached Their Highest Levels Yet.” As an avid reader I am immediately bothered by this, but I think it is worth explaining why.

              First, over half the country is functionally illiterate, and even more don’t like to read, so who are we banning books for, anyway? It’s not like online ads that subliminally change your thinking. If you want to read a book, you have to physically get it, let someone else know what you’re reading (checking it out of a library or buying it in a store), and spend hours reading the material, depending on how fast you read. Reading is also self-selecting, as you can figure out by the book cover and back if you want to spend the time to decipher its contents. Reading social media and news is anonymous (except for the data points being collected on your online behavior), short, and based on what will keep you online, not what will enrich your life. Oh yeah, and it’s not vetted by anybody.

              One reason I know this idea of banning books is bad is historical. No movement that restricted access to books ever signaled anything positive. Another reason I know it is bad is because it doesn’t impact most people, so any good they are intending to do is lost on most Americans. I know this because I have worked for several schools in the Bay Area, including those that can be considered “elite,” and do you know what I learned? Most high school students don’t read the books, and this has been true for over a decade. So who are we protecting? The books are too advanced for young kids, and the older ones don’t read anyway. If they did, their targeted ads will give them something they will want to read. Oh wait, the targeted ads don’t advertise books; they advertise games, make-up, vaping, and clothing. So why are we banning books?

              Have any of these people even read any of these books, or are they just afraid of the content? We fear what we don’t understand, so it may be worth reading those book after all.

I am sure that anyone who is advocating banning books has not read Fahrenheit 451. If they did, they completely missed the point. The only thing Bradbury got wrong was the nuclear end: it’s psychological manipulation on our digital platforms that will be our demise. To read a book is to commit to learning what someone else has taken hours, months, and sometimes years to present to the public. They have been read, edited, and vetted by other people. The ads and social media posts that people choose to look at have not been. This is more chaotic, less regulated, and more dangerous than a book could ever be. So I ask again: why are we banning books?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Conversation?

I want to talk to people about issues that matter, without starting an argument. Members of the generations who have been here longer than I have say that society has lost the ability to have discourse where there is disagreement. I agree with this assessment. Through this conversation I want to work through the issues, or around them if they are too emotionally charged. The purpose of this blog is to open to discussion the issues that I am going to tackle through optimistic satire in my upcoming book The Study . I have chosen to ignore most of the topics that seem to polarize American society the most. However, there are some issues I feel are so important that they need to be addressed, and I will brave the storm with the hope of starting the conversation. Through this conversation, I hope to find agreement among different groups with the purpose of implementing solutions to the ills that need not plague an industrialized, modern society.
Post a Comment
Read more

The What If Series Introduction

The What If… Series               What if we focused on how to truly solve problems, instead of putting band-aids on bullet wounds? What if we restarted discourse so that we focused on how to help each other, instead of complaining about how we are not as happy as we could be? What if we spent more time talking about the good we can do, instead of the evils done by others? These and other fundamental questions will drive my new What If… series of blog posts.               The inspiration for the series comes from my experience as a classroom teacher. I am a fan of discourse and questions in the classroom, and encourage them from my students. Often, I will hear a “What if” question from my students, usually presented as a source of distraction. My answer to this is often, “Your guess is as good as mine. Think about it and let me know what you come up...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Viral Candidate - Introduction

  What if a public-school teacher ran for President of the United States? Just to be clear, I am talking about me. What if an average American ran for president?   Twenty years ago, this would have been unthinkable, as there was no inexpensive and effective method to disseminate information to enough voters. The PAC’s will certainly ignore anyone who has no interest in increasing their wealth, so where would the money come from? Now we have social media, the internet, and GoFundMe. I can share information with the largest voting block without spending a dime; merely becoming viral will get me the support and start the discussions to bring voters around to a new (and old) way of campaigning. GoFundMe will allow a person with student loan debt and making less than living wage to go around the country and talk to fellow Americans about what they need. This is the first thing that will separate me from the pack: I want to listen. I want to know what you need. What we are a...
Post a Comment
Read more