Yuh! Books burn wicked good, brother!

December 23, 2004 3:05 AM

Welcome to the Alabama of the Northeast.

Andrea Minnon of Lebanon said she had never heard of "The Catcher in the Rye" before she learned that it was on her 14-year-old son Spencer's freshman reading list.

Presumably because reading's not her strong point. But she wants the local school to ban it.
posted by Mayor Curley (109 comments total)

Isn't this where someone says something like "Yawn - newsfilter..."?
I feel a bit cheeky doing so, since I'm a recent joiner - but I've been lurking for many years... long enough to know better!

Why not add some other links? There's a history of this book being banned - which I discovered via the most trivial Google search.
posted by Chunder at 3:22 AM on December 23, 2004

That story contains my nomination for 'caption of the year':

After Andrea Minnon went online to research "The Catcher in the Rye," which had been assigned to her son, she decided that it espouses immoral ideas. Now she is reading the novel.

Priceless. And to avoid the 'newsfilter' thing, perhaps we take it as a parable to follow the links and go to the source? Online access to crib-notes, summaries, reviews etc may be proving that a little learning is a dang'rous thing, since, judging from the story itself, Andrea Minnon's 'research' extended only as far as the very first entry on the Google results page.
posted by riviera at 3:32 AM on December 23, 2004

Does it say which Lebanon? Ohio? Pennsylvania? Some context clues point to Maine, but I'm still not sure.
posted by fixedgear at 3:33 AM on December 23, 2004

Spencer Minnon said he appreciates that his mother is looking out for him. "There are other alternative things we could read rather than what is in that book," he said.

Clearly a child with a keen interest in literature.

When we read Catcher in the Rye every single kid in the class was totally disappointed by how unshocking it was. Also by what an annoying whiner Holden Caulfield was. It kind of made me want to become an investment banker or a lawyer. Luckily the next book we read was Catch-22.

I AM surprised they have kids reading Bastard out of Carolina though. I wonder how they sneaked that one in?
posted by fshgrl at 3:37 AM on December 23, 2004

I fully support the ban of Catcher in the Wry.

Now that that is out of the way, I don't really understand what your problem is. She doesn't seem to be saying that it should be burnt. She simply said that she thinks it is inappropriate for the freshman level. There will be a curriculum review and the book's appropriateness will be decided. If she wins, they will read something else and kids who want to read the Catcher in the Rye can go to the public library and read it. If the book stays then her kid will read something else. So, exactly what is wrong with all that? It seems to me like local government at work. Is the problem that she has taken an interest in her son's schooling? Is the problem that she has a different point of view about the importance of literature than you do? Is the problem that she wants to have a say in what the government teaches her child?

I think it is unfortunate that she didn't read it when she was in high school. I also think it is unfortunate that she still hasn't read it and that her impression of the book is based on things she read on the internet. I also think that it is quite likely that she is a busybody or a troublemaker. But, she has every right in the world to do what she is doing and I think she should be pitied rather than mocked or demonized for not having heard of Mark David Chapman's favorite book.

Personally, I think that it is too bad that a book that is about such a solipsistic, narcissistic and depressive character is required reading for any ninth grader. These kids probably aren't doing a lot of reading on their own time, so, if we are going to force them to read anything, why aren't we forcing them to read Huck Finn or Moby Dick?
posted by mokujin at 3:40 AM on December 23, 2004

Before filing her complaint, Minnon said, she and her husband researched the book using Sparknotes, an online study guide.

Let me get this straight. She hasn't read the book but thinks it espouses immorality and wants it banned?

Think Bobcat Gothwaite said it best, "thin the herd"
posted by squeak at 3:42 AM on December 23, 2004

isn't it time to stop subjecting high school freshman to this dreadful novel simply on the basis that so many better novels have been written since 1951?

it's status as a classic seems to have more to do with its iconic status as "controversial literature" than anything else.
posted by three blind mice at 3:43 AM on December 23, 2004

Does it say which Lebanon?

Maine.
posted by yerfatma at 3:45 AM on December 23, 2004

Moby Dick was awful. Although Catcher in the Rye isn't the best book, it was a welcome change of pace from the regular slew of literature thrown at high school students.
posted by adzm at 3:46 AM on December 23, 2004

"Do you see how I have a HEART on my shirt? That means that I CARE about my child's education. Don't you dare disagree with my choice of literature, despite not ever reading anything. Please also note that my head is disturbingly square."
posted by scrim at 4:10 AM on December 23, 2004

Hey Scrim, welcome to Fark, great post!

Hey Squeak, I bet she also wants Hustler banned for ninth graders because she heard it espouses immorality and objectifies women, even though she has never read it! What an idiot!

Direct quote from the above linked article that you people supposedly read:

"Now she wants it removed from the freshman curriculum."

Wake up people! There is a vast difference between banning a book and removing it from the 9th grade curriculum at a high school!

If that child is under sixteen he is being coerced by the state to attend school. I think that his mother should have some control over what he does there. I don't necessarily agree with how or where she is excercising what little power she has in the matter, but I think she has the right to do so. I think that she has a good argument. She thinks the book is immoral in that it objectifies women and that the book is inappropriate for ninth graders.

If you have a problem with those arguments you should address them. Whether or not she has read the book is completely irrelevant to whether it is immoral or appropriate for ninth graders. And, for the last time, this is not about banning books.
posted by mokujin at 4:16 AM on December 23, 2004

If that child is under sixteen he is being coerced by the state to attend school.

I'd be curious to here other suggestions. I mean, I think gangs of kids roaming the street or revocation of child labor laws would be awesome, but that's just me. I mean, think of it! It could be like Akira or Lord of the Flies or Ender's Shadow or, hell, pick your own "kids running wild" science-fiction fantasy. Fuck "learning". It'll be great.

Actually, though, I heard from someone that Lord of the Flies has violence or something in it. I've never read it myself, but fuck if my kids are getting exposed to that.

Whether or not she has read the book is completely irrelevant to whether it is immoral or appropriate for ninth graders.

It has a fucking lot to do with whether or not she can judge that, though. Or is thinking and deciding things for yourself out of fashion, too?
posted by scrim at 4:36 AM on December 23, 2004

oh, me and homophones! I meant "hear".
posted by scrim at 4:38 AM on December 23, 2004

Is that a picture of her or Eddie Izzard?
posted by unsupervised at 4:39 AM on December 23, 2004

If they tell me not to read it, I'm going to read it. On my own. Not for a class! Just for the pure illicit pleasure of contrarianism.

I believe if she has problems with the ideas in the book, she should read it with her son (read: at the same time as), and they should discuss her concerns about it, and his, if any. A parent should not just blindly shelter their children from strange thinking, otherwise when they go out into the world on their own they'll be needlessly vulnerable.
posted by Eideteker at 4:44 AM on December 23, 2004

I find it very amusing that scrim claims to advocate reading something before judging it, yet obviously failed to do so himself in responding to mokujin's post.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:54 AM on December 23, 2004

mokujin - no one's denying her a right to say what her child should read ... if you'd read the article, you'd have discovered that the school district allows children to pick an alternate book

the question then becomes, does she have the right to tell children who aren't hers what to read? ... the answer's no
posted by pyramid termite at 4:56 AM on December 23, 2004

That she'd never even *heard* of CitR kinda scares me.
posted by notsnot at 5:05 AM on December 23, 2004

Did this woman go to "how to ensure your son is bullied" class?
posted by salmacis at 5:32 AM on December 23, 2004

unsupervised - No, Eddie Izzard is MUCH more stylish.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 5:35 AM on December 23, 2004

Pyramid Termite:

You didn't follow her argument at all. What she says in addition to her argument about the immorality and inappropriateness of the book is that if her child simply opts not to read the book that the rest of the class is reading her child, Tyler, will be missing out on the educational experience (i.e. group discussion, argument and interaction in the classroom) that the rest of the class will be partaking in. So it is more complex than a simple matter of choosing not to, because choosing not to results in a rather small, but undeniable harm. Furthermore, if she really thinks that the book is immoral and inappropriate, wouldn't she be acting immorally herself if she didn't attempt to remove it from the curriculum? Not only would such an immoral and inappropriate book be corrupting and demoralizing the other youth, but in doing so it could possibly create an unhealthy environment for her son, even though he had not read the book.

Scrim's argument is so ridiculous that I can't believe that he even believes it. It is certainly possible to make judgments on the basis of what others tell you without personal firsthand experience, we all do it hundreds of times every day. These judgments may not be as reliable as those based on unmediated information but they are still legitimate. Would any of this be an issue at all if the book in question were Lolita, which is a personal favorite of mine, but completely inappropriate to the ninth grade? Would her not having read Lolita, but having some knowledge of its subject matter be at all relevant? Of course not.
posted by mokujin at 5:37 AM on December 23, 2004

Mokujin, while we all make those kind of judgements every day, I'm not sure that the consequences of those judgements have quite the breadth of impact that this one would if allowed to continue.
posted by jackiemcghee at 5:44 AM on December 23, 2004

uh not exactly the point is it? See I would agree she could make this request IF she read the damn book rather than rely on Sparknotes (and the internets) to base her opinion. But she made her complaint (according to the article) before she read the book. Furthermore I have a problem with anyone trying to censor anyone else based on Sparknotes rendition of JD Salingers book. Now if she read the book and then said, "I don't want freshmen students reading this I just might change my mind but she hasn't read the book!

If she doesn't want her child exposed to this book she can have him study another book (according to the article) she doesn't need to request the books removal for the whole freshman class. And yes she wants it banned (ie: prohibit/forbid) from being used in the freshman class.

Either way I think she is off base and making much ado about nothing.
posted by squeak at 5:51 AM on December 23, 2004

And that is why there is a curriculum review process. That is why you should read the article, it isn't very good, but at least you will be able to comment upon it and the other comments germanely.
posted by mokujin at 5:52 AM on December 23, 2004

Furthermore, if she really thinks that the book is immoral and inappropriate, wouldn't she be acting immorally herself if she didn't attempt to remove it from the curriculum? Not only would such an immoral and inappropriate book be corrupting and demoralizing the other youth

How is this different from the old attack on "liberals" who want to regulate foods and tobacco use? As in "They're so condescending. They think they know what's best for you, and they want to enforce their will upon you."

Despite the fact that this woman is far away from being an educator (she didn't know the book existed), she feels it's her duty to decide what other peoples' children should read in school.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:56 AM on December 23, 2004

Just by her kicking up a fuss, the local kids will read the book. She's feeding her supposed enemy with her activism. Doesn't this happen every school year? It must contribute to high sales.

Wish she'd picked a better book.
posted by goofyfoot at 6:05 AM on December 23, 2004

If Catcher in the Rye is too immoral for schoolchidren, then we're doomed. Mokujin wants to give our lil' baby ninth-graders worthless plot-driven trash like Pudd'nhead Wilson, but I can't think of a bigger waste of their time.

Kids need exposure to narcissism and nihilism and phonies. What's the point of teaching kids English otherwise? I love high school English because it purports to be about teaching kids great literature, but a large part of it is really about subversively teaching them to have sympathy for other walks of life and teaching them to be open-minded adults. This woman's right, in a way - her kids might be infected with ideals that she disapproves of. But that's the danger of letting your kids out of the house. Hopefully someone will blow this woman off before she sugarcoats literature classes to the point of uselessness.

(Let them read Lolita at the ninth grade! That would be great!)
posted by painquale at 6:05 AM on December 23, 2004

mokujin: right on. I agree with your comments.

ALSO: previous MeFi discussions of CitR here and here.
posted by davidmsc at 6:09 AM on December 23, 2004

Hey painquale, when did I advocate Pudd'n'head Wilson? Can anyone on this post read?
posted by mokujin at 6:10 AM on December 23, 2004

Well therein lies the problem, you assumed that I didn't read the article before I made my first post on the topic. I didn't think it warranted more commentary than I gave it initially :)

Despite the fact that this woman is far away from being an school (she didn't know the book existed), she feels it's her duty to decide what other peoples' children should read in school.

That bothered me as well. Heck the whole thing bothers me. I think she is out of line to bring this to the attention of the school. She could make the request that her son doesn't read it. She doesn't have to include everyone else in her desire to censor her kid.

I still stand by my first comment, "thin the herd"
posted by squeak at 6:13 AM on December 23, 2004

Tell me if I'm wrong,

"I want him to discover things for himself, but with my guidance," she said.

but with her guidance it looks like he'll never discover anything about life. This is just my opinion, of course.

btw: I read it at around his age and wasn't terribly impressed with the writing or the story. I also thought that Holden was an officious prick.

YMMV
posted by kamylyon at 6:13 AM on December 23, 2004

Hey painquale, when did I advocate Pudd'n'head Wilson? Can anyone on this post read?

Don't accuse me of not being able to read, my dear black pot. I said, "like Pudd'nhead Wilson." If you want to assign something less offensive than The Catcher in the Rye, it'll be like Pudd'nhead Wilson.

I can't understand why you're arguing on this batty old lady's behalf. Would you take up arms for any parent who thought that what her kids' class was reading was immoral. Presumably not. So, what makes The Cather in the Rye so bad that you side with this woman particularly?
posted by painquale at 6:21 AM on December 23, 2004

Lolita is great literature (I love that book), but maybe not so great a book at that age. How about something without such a horrendous sexual relationship for our young'uns?

I vote Bierce, Woolf, Whitman, and Twain, freshman year. For starters.
posted by goofyfoot at 6:21 AM on December 23, 2004

on general principle, I am against cricitizing people and mentioning their looks, but without being snarky I must admit she has the perfect Puritan face.

btw I re-read the Nine Stories almost every year (and am always struck by the genius of Bananafish), but I am afraid to re-read Catcher in the Rye because I'm afraid I won't like it as much as I did when I was younger
posted by matteo at 6:31 AM on December 23, 2004

What painquale said. [both times]
posted by birdherder at 6:31 AM on December 23, 2004

I remember a few years back Jon Stewart referred to Maine as the "south of the north." Once you get outside of Portland and surrounding bedroom communities, the state becomes very conservative in every sense of the word.

Besides this being pretty much a bogus claim since she didn't bother to read the damn book before making a stink, she's way off base insisting the book be banned from the school. The reason you hire educators and a school board in a community is so that you don't need to micromanage the education system yourself.
posted by SteveInMaine at 6:35 AM on December 23, 2004

What Eideteker said. And it has nothing to do with Salinger's book. This woman's thinking could be applied to any book. Participate actively in your kid's education and you have nothing to fear from any book. Though kids have a lot to fear from stupid and uneducated parents.
posted by acrobat at 6:35 AM on December 23, 2004

I'd like to know why Catcher is such an sacrosanct part of the high-school curriculum. But that's not exactly relevant to the post. Look for an AskMe post once my coffee gets perked.
posted by goofyfoot at 6:46 AM on December 23, 2004

Painquale:

I haven't really given any prescriptions for 9th grade curricula except to say, as an aside, that students should be reading books that will give them some cultural capital later in life, rather than solipsistic novels about self-pitying rich kids. I should have been more explicit.

You said:
"I can't understand why you're arguing on this batty old lady's behalf. Would you take up arms for any parent who thought that what her kids' class was reading was immoral. Presumably not. So, what makes The Cather in the Rye so bad that you side with this woman particularly?"

I cannot say for certain that I would "take up arms" for any parent who thought their child's class was reading or studying something immoral or inappropriate. For that matter, I don't think that I have taken up arms in this case. What I have tried to do here is make clear that she should be treated with respect rather than mocked and that she has a right to express her opinion and to try to change the curriculum of her child's school. Do you think that she deserves to be mocked, or do you think that she doesn't have any right to determine her child's education?

Now, I am not 'pro-censorship', but I do not think that free and open access to information trumps all other values.

It makes no difference to me if it is Catcher in the Rye or any other book. Parents deserve to have a say in their children's educations. I didn't realize that this was such a controversial position.
posted by mokujin at 6:52 AM on December 23, 2004

Once you get outside of Portland and surrounding bedroom communities, the state becomes very conservative in every sense of the word.

SteveinMaine, weren't you a little surprised at how far south she lives? When I looked up the location of Lebanon, I was shocked that it was in York county and not, say, Piscataquis.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:59 AM on December 23, 2004

Parents deserve to have a say in their children's educations. I didn't realize that this was such a controversial position.

Hi, read the article.

"School Administrative District 60, which includes Noble High School, allows students to read something else and sit out class discussions on any book they consider objectionable. A handful of Noble students take advantage of the policy most years."

She is trying to change the curriculum for other people's children. And for the worst, I'm sure. Maybe they can just read VeggieTales and Curious George books and that way they'll turn out to be model citizens.

Now, I am not 'pro-censorship'

Well, yeah, in defending a woman who is looking to remove literature from the hands of teenagers, you are.

but I do not think that free and open access to information trumps all other values.

Thanks for your input; please move to North Korea so you won't be offended by free expression, you unAmerican fucking traitor.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:06 AM on December 23, 2004

It makes no difference to me if it is Catcher in the Rye or any other book. Parents deserve to have a say in their children's educations. I didn't realize that this was such a controversial position.

I try to keep myself out of pointless arguments, and arguing with you over this is clearly becoming pointless, but why the hell don't you read the article yourself, rather than repeatedly accusing us of not being able to read?

"School Administrative District 60, which includes Noble High School, allows students to read something else and sit out class discussions on any book they consider objectionable. A handful of Noble students take advantage of the policy most years."

That sounds to me as if she has a say in her benighted offspring's education. Why do you keep insisting that she should have a say in the lives of other people's children?
posted by scrim at 7:07 AM on December 23, 2004

I remember a few years back Jon Stewart referred to Maine as the "south of the north." Once you get outside of Portland and surrounding bedroom communities, the state becomes very conservative in every sense of the word.

You could say that about a lot of Vermont, New Hampshire, upstate New York, and Pennsylvania between Philly and Pittsburgh, too. That's our deep dark secret up north, we got our share of yokels, too, god bless 'em.
posted by jonmc at 7:17 AM on December 23, 2004

One comment here was that the child or children might read Huckleberry Finn instaed of Catcher. A number of schools have banned Twain's class!

And the Melville book is too tough--not age appropriate--for that age.

So long as her child has options and is not required to read the book, then all is ok. That she believes she is acting for the good of all parents and the community suggests that she is a busybody pain in the ass with a moral zeal we could well do without. Cathcer, for me, is dated by now...No sex, no drugs, no hip hop...and in and out of private schools cause parents have lots of money etc.
posted by Postroad at 7:21 AM on December 23, 2004

Geez, I went to Catholic high school and we read this book. A Separate Peace too. As I recall, Chaucer had some racy bits, as did Will Shakespeare. Read it all, morals remained intact.

Of course, my parents encouraged reading.
posted by tommasz at 7:26 AM on December 23, 2004

Do you think that she deserves to be mocked, or do you think that she doesn't have any right to determine her child's education?

Now there's a false dichotomy! Of course I believe she has the right to try to change the school system, but I hope she doesn't succeed, I know she'll make an idiot of herself, and I'll be mocking her the whole way! Hopefully, in real life, the school board will consider her case, reject it, then get home, drink a bunch of wine, laugh about what a close-minded moron she is, and post snarky comments about her on Metafilter.

What I have tried to do here is make clear that she should be treated with respect rather than mocked

No way! This woman wants to ban The Catcher in the Rye... How 1950's of her!... her reasons are antiquated and bad, she has a laughable conception of moral goodness, and she hadn't even read the book before making her moral decree! Let her file her complaints, and let the school board treat the matter judiciously, but let Metafilter make fun of her along the way without giving her an ounce of respect that she doesn't deserve.
posted by painquale at 7:29 AM on December 23, 2004

I think you're making some pretty good arguments, painquale, but she doesn't want to "ban" CitR-- she wants her son to be firmly in the mainstream of the class, and she doesn't want him to read the book. I feel bad for the kid and I think she's a loon, but I don't think she wants to make any moral decrees. Unfortunately, keeping the book out of the classroom is the only resolution to her two wants.
posted by trharlan at 7:44 AM on December 23, 2004

If it's the Alabama of the Northeast, does it stilll have nice (if currently hurricane-clobbered and recovering) beaches and celebrate Mardi Gras? Does it have great barbecue? Was some of the greatest soul music ever recorded there?
posted by raysmj at 7:44 AM on December 23, 2004

While her overall argument is weak, mokujin does have a point. A parent has every right to object to the public school curriculum their child is taught. If said parent likes exercises in futility, they can attempt to influence the curriculum of the school from the outside. But if public schools let every concerned parent influence the curriculum, well, we'd likely have Sharia-based curricula ten years from now. I'm pretty sure that would be similar, but not exactly what Ms. Minnon/mokujin have in mind.

The answer is for parents to take responsibility for their child's education. Even better, let the child realize that they are responsible for their own education. Public education is like welfare, if you need it and use it, you can't raise a ruckus about the low quality cheese. Nobody is forcing you to eat it.
posted by McGuillicuddy at 7:49 AM on December 23, 2004

Is it up to me to carry the banner for Catcher? Of course all the hullabaloo over the years has unfairly made it into a mythic monolith of Great Literature, but it's still a damn fine little book.

I think I was 14 when I read it (as assigned in class) and thought it was just OK. I was, probably like most 14-year-olds, disappointed that for all the talk, there was never any actual sex. Oh yeah, that and the constant whining. But I reread it at about 19 and it blew me away, though that may have been because someone close to me had just been diagnosed as manic-depressive (for you young'uns, that's what we called "Bipolar Disorder" back in the day) and I kept seeing how Holden's behavior made perfect sense to him within that screwed-up worldview.

Even without this, though, there's no other book of that era that gives teenagers any window on how hard it really is to make it by yourself in the real world. In all the details of Holden's failed attempts at amorality lies a deeply moral story.

So maybe it would be better if kids read it at 16 or 17 than 14. However, that's an argument someone who has not ever read the book is plainly unqualified to make.

Oh, and did the author of this article even read the book?

While the book does contain scenes in which Holden Caulfield experiments with alcohol and sex...

Well, no. He gets close, but he never does "experiment with sex," unless by "experiment with" you mean "call a hooker and then refuse to have."
posted by soyjoy at 7:49 AM on December 23, 2004

She is trying to change the curriculum for other people's children. And for the worst, I'm sure.

You may disagree with her, but how is her approach bad? The school is part of the community, so the community should have some say in what the curriculum is. The community may ultimately say no, we don't want to teach this book. How can you say a member of the community shouldn't even be able to have input to that process?

If the school was leading voluntary group prayer sessions in class, wouldn't you care? Or would you say, that's okay, because your kid has the option of not participating, of being ostracized by his peers, and left out of the classroom discussion? Somehow, I think you'd be pretty angry about it.

Well, yeah, in defending a woman who is looking to remove literature from the hands of teenagers, you are.

Big difference between banning a book and removing it from the curriculum.

** PS - I actually do think that caving in to parents like these make our schools worse, but your attitude about it stinks.
posted by adzuki at 7:51 AM on December 23, 2004

jonmc: There are yokels everywhere, indeed, but book challenges and censor-happy people are found in places other than rural areas. The Church of Scientology is not big in rural areas, for instance. A hard fact about the drive to censor and ban literature and works of art is that it's universal.
posted by raysmj at 7:57 AM on December 23, 2004

Clarification: I'm not objecting to the fact that she is fighting for what she believes in. I'm objecting to what she believes in. And I'm also objecting to the idea that the school board should let her backwards moral sensibilities influence their curriculum.

These are three different facets of the same issue, and they've tended to be conflated so far. (mokujin seems to be on Ms. Minnon's side for all three).
posted by painquale at 8:03 AM on December 23, 2004

I realize that ray. I was just expanding on steveinmaine's point that the northeast isn't all metropoli and suburbs.
posted by jonmc at 8:03 AM on December 23, 2004

I just want to point out that mokujin suggested that Catcher in the Rye "objectifies women". Now, CitR is not my favorite book, but "objectifies women"?

Here's the thing: I agree that parents do, and should, have the right to discuss their concerns about their childrens' curriculum with schools and with School Boards.

However, this woman's concerns, as she articulates them, are so spectacularly uninformed as to have caused me to have to go to the stockroom for an extra case of WTF?

Thus, I feel that mocking her particular concerns, as she expressed them, is an important part of maintaining the social order.

Mocking her fashion and grooming choices, even though they are deeply unfortunate, is not (she's not a "celebrity" who's being paid to appear publicly in stylish clothes, therefore we shouldn't judge her on that basis).
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:04 AM on December 23, 2004

Moby Dick was awful. Although Catcher in the Rye isn't the best book, it was a welcome change of pace from the regular slew of literature thrown at high school students.

Catcher in the Rye is not worthy to wipe Moby Dick's ass.

Oh, and ignorant ass is clearly what this woman is. But that hardly makes her special. In this country, she's in the majority.
posted by rushmc at 8:07 AM on December 23, 2004

She has the right to petition the school board to remove this book from the curriculum, but in doing so she is wrong and I am going to make fun of her.

Does that pretty much tie together the arguments beong made in this thread?

I do not think the school prayer comparison works, because in reading a book in English class, indoctrination in the values presented by the book is not the point.
posted by furiousthought at 8:12 AM on December 23, 2004

Catcher in the Rye is not worthy to wipe Moby Dick's ass.

That's kind of like knocking Chuck Berry for not being Vladimir Horowitz. Yes, they're both books, but they had widely different aesthetic aspirations from what I can tell. (Caveat: I've never read Moby Dick, I have read CitR.)
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on December 23, 2004

Catcher in the Rye is not worthy to wipe Moby Dick's ass.

As a whaling manual, sure.
posted by trharlan at 8:17 AM on December 23, 2004

But you've heard of CitR, right jonmc?
posted by graventy at 8:21 AM on December 23, 2004

er...Moby Dick.
posted by graventy at 8:21 AM on December 23, 2004

I live in Portsmouth, NH, and this story has gotten a tremendous amount of local play.

It's interesting that the article posted above does not mention one salient detail: that the mom homeschooler her son right up until this year.

She has come to have expectations of parental control over currriculum that are inapplicable in public education.

*.

As to whether this is censorship: there are varieties of censorship. PEN specifies whether to call a book 'censored' 'restricted' or 'threatened' when it's challenged. Right now, this book has just been challenged, since no decisions have been made.

If I were the English teacher, I'd be all over this story. I'd have the kids reading the news stories and debating the idea of censoring the book - including the kid in question; I'd have them each do a research project on another censored title; I'd put together a timeline of censorship; I'd link it up with the history/civics curriculum to talk about the extent of governmental control over expression and the Bill of Rights -- what a curriculum goldmine this thing is.
posted by Miko at 8:24 AM on December 23, 2004

No, furiousthought. Parents have the right to petition school boards for changes to the curriculum. However, when those petitions are ill-informed and ill-thought-out, they deserve mockery.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:28 AM on December 23, 2004

raysmj: thank you.
posted by sklero at 8:29 AM on December 23, 2004

This woman may well be a fine citizen, a bright, caring individual, and a loving mom.

However, her petition initiative is so stupid and thoughtless that it deserves nothing but scorn. There may well be good reasons to object to Catcher in the Rye or any other book's inclusion in the curriculum. This woman brings up none of them. Most ridiculous, in my mind, is that she wanted the book removed from the curriculum EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD NEVER READ IT HERSELF.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:31 AM on December 23, 2004

But you've heard of CitR, right jonmc?...er...Moby Dick.

that great solo by Bonham on Led Zeppelin II? Of course.
posted by jonmc at 8:33 AM on December 23, 2004

You could say that about a lot of Vermont, New Hampshire, upstate New York, and Pennsylvania

Don't you lump NH in with those liberals. As above, I read Catcher in 8th and 9th grade in two different Catholic schools. I can't imagine how this book is still controversial. You have to admit, that would still be a hell of a job, standing in the wheat watching out for kids who stray too far. You'd probably get crotchety with age though and let a few go over the edge.
posted by yerfatma at 8:42 AM on December 23, 2004

If the school was leading voluntary group prayer sessions in class, wouldn't you care? Or would you say, that's okay, because your kid has the option of not participating, of being ostracized by his peers, and left out of the classroom discussion? Somehow, I think you'd be pretty angry about it.

School-led prayer: unConstitutional
Assigning a book: Constitutional

Big difference between banning a book and removing it from the curriculum.

Depends on why you're removing it from the curriculum. It's being challenged because it has "adult" themes, not because it's trash or uneducational. You know the difference - even if you don't use the word "banned," that's exactly what she's attempting.

** PS - I actually do think that caving in to parents like these make our schools worse, but your attitude about it stinks.

And I think that anyone who tries to justify banning books from the classroom because they're not happy little primers in which the protagonist hugs his parents and then prays for three hundred pages is a fucking twit who doesn't understand life or literature.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:44 AM on December 23, 2004

Is Alabama widely known for book banning? I always think of the john birch society.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:44 AM on December 23, 2004

Don't you lump NH in with those liberals

Hey -- watch it there, we are a blue state.
posted by Miko at 8:46 AM on December 23, 2004

jon, re Horowitz vs Berry. it's funny that back in high school I was lucky enough to go to a Horowitz concert and he attacked Scarlatti in a way that made Chuck Berry's style look... shy.

classical music can be so gangsta that it sometimes scares me
posted by matteo at 9:07 AM on December 23, 2004

No, furiousthought. Parents have the right to petition school boards for changes to the curriculum. However

Fine, fine, that's more accurate, thanks for helping me draft my legal documents - we are basically of the same mind about this. I was writing my comment at the same time you and rushmc did. It wasn't meant to be a retort... our only difference is that I'd be more willing to mock the person if I were annoyed enough, I think.
posted by furiousthought at 9:08 AM on December 23, 2004

classical music can be so gangsta that it sometimes scares me

Oh, I'm sure. I was just sort of saying that we should try to judge art on it's on own terms; that Horowitz and Berry had different aims, but both succeeded quite well at them, as did Salinger and Melville.
posted by jonmc at 9:19 AM on December 23, 2004

Got it, furiousthought. I thought that you were suggesting that I was being hypocritical in simultaneously espousing the right of parents to petition school boards about curricula and yet mocking this woman's petition. I'm all for intelligent, well-thought-out petitions to school boards, and all for mocking stupid, thoughtless petitions to school boards.

I'm Sidhedevil, and I approve this message.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:32 AM on December 23, 2004

No book should ever be removed from view because it seems "immoral", and in fact kids at that age should be required by their schools to read things which challenge the comfortable sensibilities their parents have instilled in them, and present ideas which seem initially (or even permanently) problematic. Many parents instinctively want protect their children from scary new things, and schools in theory have the exact opposite mandate, which is why parents should have no say, beyond removing their kid from the system, in what goes on in a classroom.
posted by Hildago at 10:29 AM on December 23, 2004

(Let them read Lolita at the ninth grade! That would be great!)

I think that would probably result in some startling classroom discussions and probably subsequent arrests.
posted by ilsa at 10:52 AM on December 23, 2004

Ah, lovely Maine. I went to high school there back in the 80's, though not very near Lebanon, but quite a bit further up the coast. And I can assure you that there are many parts of Maine, mostly in the Downeast region, that very much like the rural South (in both the great ways and the awful ways) - the accent's just a bit different.

And when I was in high school, there was also a major controversy about Catcher in the Rye, resulting in it being removed from curriculum and from the library in my high school. I don't recall well what happened because it happened to the junior class when I was a freshman, but I remember all the old biddies in an uproar about it, and the Daughters of the American Revolution raising a stink. Close-minded people afraid of their precious children learning about sinful things.

Note that in my senior year, we did Godspell as a drama production, and the somewhat vocal pastor of the largest church in town publicly denounced us for doing it because it was disrespectful of God and the Bible... but then he quietly and anonymously (we found out anyway) donated money to the production. There's a clue as to some of the local mentality... but I digress.

I can tell you for a fact that about 100% of that junior class, along with most of the sophomores and more than half of my own freshman class (and probably the 8th-graders too, who were in the same building) were already drinking and getting drunk, smoking cigarettes, smoking pot, taking various pills, reading porn (videos were not common then), masturbating, and fucking each other's brains out as often as they could. There is nothing in that book that they weren't already doing.

I guarantee that the potential harm to our student body from reading that book would have been exactly ZERO. The few kids who might never have heard of the things happening to Holden Caulfield up to that point were the types of people who would pretty much never try any of them anyway.

I suspect the same is probably true of the kids in Lebanon, Maine today. Actually in the town where I went to school, things are quite a bit worse, as the kids have moved up to cocaine, crack, oxycontin and even heroin on top of the previous Budweiser and weed fandom - there's now a full-blown opiate rehab effort going on there, being handled by local health workers sort of "under the radar"... since of course nobody wants to admit there's a problem.

Just so you know, from my experience living in Maine, looking at Mrs. Minnon I'd estimate her age at between 33 and 36 - maaaybe 38 tops, which would make her a contemporary of mine or just a bit younger. I'd be quite interested to find out what young Andrea was up to when she was between 14 and 18. I suspect some rather selective memory being applied, judging by what I know of my schoolmates as they are nowadays, and of Mainers in general. (It's just my opinion, of course, take it as you wish.)

Believe me, just because she never heard of the book doesn't mean the kids in that town aren't already living it.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:57 AM on December 23, 2004

[i]Moby Dick[/i] is much more interesting once you take the copious hints dropped by Ishmael that Ishmael is on the edge of being Cucoo for Cocopufs.

But I suppose this means I have to put Catcher on the list of books I should have read 20 years ago but didn't because I was into Asamov.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:37 AM on December 23, 2004

it's funny that back in high school I was lucky enough to go to a Horowitz concert and he attacked Scarlatti in a way that made Chuck Berry's style look... shy.

Heh, you made my day with that, matteo.

Horowitz and Berry had different aims, but both succeeded quite well at them, as did Salinger and Melville.

That is, in fact, disputable. Also, not all aims are created equal. I may aim to pee in your stairwell and succeed admirably—but my accomplishment will never rate equal to Shakespeare's.
posted by rushmc at 11:48 AM on December 23, 2004

(Let them read Lolita at the ninth grade! That would be great!)

I think that would probably result in some startling classroom discussions and probably subsequent arrests.

Thought the purpose for reading any book in English class like Catcher in the Rye was for it's author's literary style not the actual content with in. This is English class not History class.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:02 PM on December 23, 2004

Speaking of Shakespeare--wait till Ms. Minnon hears about his dirty books!

I read Catcher in 10th grade. I remember thinking that I would have appreciated it more if I had read it when I was in 8th. Of course, by then, I had read Fear and Loathing and Naked Lunch on my own, so Salinger's book was hardly shocking.

I can't belive that someone in the world actually considers this a dangerous book. Kids are exposed to an insane amount of sex and violence in movies and on television--but sex and violence in a book! Oh no! They might actually have to think about these things in some meaningful way.

Her poor kid. She reminds me of the hyper-Christian mother of a friend I had in 7th grade. She'd burn his Slayer and Metallica tapes. He'd buy them again. She'd burn them again...
posted by apis mellifera at 12:08 PM on December 23, 2004

That is, in fact, disputable. Also, not all aims are created equal. I may aim to pee in your stairwell and succeed admirably—but my accomplishment will never rate equal to Shakespeare's.

Who probably wizzed on more than a few pubilc buildings in his own day. Shakespeare does not seem to have had high aims for his plays, and many of his plays succeed in spite of obvious attempts to butter up royalty.

I'm a bit suspicious about this statement because it seems that it is based on a myth about classical music. Sometime between then and now, we created this post hoc category called "classical", and even worse, we made it "grand" by focusing on the development of the symphony orchestra and the opera. In the process, chamber music got pushed to the margins in favor of the symphonies and concertos.

What gets lost in all this, primarily because for most people we don't have original recordings, is that most of the "great composers" were soloists long before writing symphonies, and made their bread and butter churning out dance music with a good beat, short, sweet and sentimental songs, or comissioned work rolled off to fit a specific occasion.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:28 PM on December 23, 2004

I may not agree with or even understand what you say, but I will defend to the death someone else's right to suppress it.

she concluded that it espouses immoral ideas
We need more people to dictate morality to us not only for our children, but for us all.
Where would we be without such sagacious advice to tell us what is moral and what is not?
We must facilitate this process until the apparatus is so sensative it can from a mere disapproving nod eradicate the entire body of work of a nefarious writer from our children's thought processes.

This is not 'banning" the work. We would merely rewrite brain archetecture in such a way that.... but perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:29 PM on December 23, 2004

The thing that gets me about her not reading the book is that it's such a quick read. Small words, short sentences, short book: two, maybe three hours' tops worth of reading. She's holding a copy of the book in that photo: she must realize how short it is. Why couldn't she be bothered to read it before circulating a petition and doing newspaper interviews? I mean, if it were Absolom, Absolom I'd understand, but Catcher in the Rye?!


...classical music can be so gangsta that it sometimes scares me...

matteo: There's a newly remastered recording of Simon Barere's performances just out. You might want to check it out: his take on Liszt is apparently just brutal.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:42 PM on December 23, 2004

> Is the problem that she has taken an interest in her
> son's schooling?

Taking an interest would be the right phrase for it if she asked for a conference with the teacher and allowed him/her to explain any of the many ways it can be taught, rather than running screaming to the schoolboard and the press to attempt to ban a book she hasn't bothered to read.

> Is the problem that she has a different point of view
> about the importance of literature than you do?

The problem is that she has, by her own admission, an uninformed "point of view" about the importance of literature. I wouldn't want her to have input on the plumbing at the school, either. While we're at it, I doubt she should have any input into the logistics of the bus routes.

> Is the problem that she wants to have a say in what
> the government teaches her child?

The government, in this case, has already put into place a very fair practice for uptight, know-it-all, philistine parents who don't want their kids to read perfectly reasonably, time-tested, literary works. What the uninformed philistine in this case wants is to be the Czar of Appropriate Literature (TM) at the school in question. She doesn't have the job qualifications for that, but you think we should respect her. Remind me, when I get around to having kids, to put them in private school.

> I think it is unfortunate that she didn't read it when
> she was in high school.

I think it's unfortunate that she hasn't taken an evening or two to read the book she has deduced, due to her literary insight, to be immoral. We're talking about a book that is fewer than 300 pages! It's a thin novel. It's a quick read. Anyone with a 8th grade education could kill it in a few evenings. But some self-appointed censors can't be bothered to take the time. Unfortunate is not the right word here. "Negligent" suits the bill far better.

> I think she should be pitied rather than mocked or
> demonized [...]

You're entitled to your opinions. The rest of us are also entitled to ours. pity her if you like. I believe that she deserves whatever mocking she gets.

> if we are going to force them to read anything, why
> aren't we forcing them to read Huck Finn or Moby Dick?

Because Moby-Dick, though a great book, is too long and complicated for children in this age group and because censors like your friend in Maine will also creep out from under the rocks where they live to try to keep kids from reading these books as well. That's the problem with censorship: it's a slippery slope.
posted by wheat at 12:45 PM on December 23, 2004

it's [sic] status as a classic seems to have more to do with its iconic status as "controversial literature" than anything else.

Hmm. It's really not that controversial, and it's hugely popular with kids. The controversy generally stems from the same problem: an illiterate parent thinking that the narrator of every school book should be teaching his or her child how to behave, not empathizing with teenage angst. Generally, when parents talk to teachers and read the book, they realize that it's not so scary.

Catcher in the Rye may seem childish to an adult, but it's a great way to talk to teens about their own feelings and negative impulses.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 1:02 PM on December 23, 2004

Catcher in the Rye is so tame compared to just about anything teens see today on TV, in magazines, or in video games (or their own daily lives), and in comparison to say the Bible, it's almost a comic book. I am always surprised when someone comes along again and wants it to be removed from a school. It's especially annoying when that person hasn't even bothered to read the book themselves before complaining. As others have said, it's a quick read, and how can you judge something based on Sparknotes or Cliff Notes? And how could she have never even heard of it before?!

If you don't want your kid reading it, fine. He can choose something else. Yes, he will miss out on all that fine teen discussion of literature, but the assignments he will get will probably be more difficult. Several times I read books other than what the class had been assigned, and I was always writing more and longer papers about them. On a side note, I didn't read different books because my parents objected, but because my teacher knew I had already read them and could see I was getting bored (signs of which were passing notes, doodling, yawning, and staring at the ceiling), so she gave me other options (good teacher). We did have a few kids in class who's parents did want them reading other things, and I don't recall them (or myself) suffering all that much from not taking part in class discussions.

thomcatspike: Thought the purpose for reading any book in English class like Catcher in the Rye was for it's author's literary style not the actual content with in. This is English class not History class.

Do I need to adjust my sarcasm meter, or are you serious?
posted by Orb at 2:37 PM on December 23, 2004

That is, in fact, disputable. Also, not all aims are created equal. I may aim to pee in your stairwell and succeed admirably—but my accomplishment will never rate equal to Shakespeare's.

Hardly a fair comparison, rush. Berry aimed to create rousing evocations of mid-50's teen America. Horowitz (from my limited knowledge, I am not a buff of classical music, although I can appreciate the artistry involved) aimed to reinterpret classical piano. Both succeeded. In this context, the "equality" of the aims ultimately is a question of taste. I prefer Chuck Berry, YMMV.

And I've used this metaphor before, but it's like food. Horowiz may be filet mignon, Chuck Berry may be a cheesebuger. But there are cheeseburgers and there are cheeseburgers. And Chuck Berry made some badass cheeseburgers.
posted by jonmc at 2:52 PM on December 23, 2004

...and as someone who recently exposited on the beauty of the C&W weepre, I think you know what I'm talking about, bro. ;)
posted by jonmc at 2:53 PM on December 23, 2004

weeper, dammit, weeper.
posted by jonmc at 2:54 PM on December 23, 2004

Actually, Dave Marsh put it well, when he compared the Four Tops "Ask The Lonely" to F. Scott Fitzgerald's Tender Is The Night. Both works attempt to evoke, as Marsh put it, "that dark part of the soul, where it's always 3 a.m. on a lonely night," and while they use different means, both suceed splendidly and affectingly. Preferences between the two are, like I said, ultimately a matter of taste.

Sorry for rambling, but this topic means a lot to me.
posted by jonmc at 3:00 PM on December 23, 2004

The whaling manual's just filler. Moby Dick beats Catcher in the Rye like a seal.
posted by atchafalaya at 3:24 PM on December 23, 2004

the actual content with in.
Do I need to adjust my sarcasm meter, or are you serious?
No, as when I said content, the tale; story, plot.

What purpose would "the plot" alone serve a purpose for in English class? History is "His story."
posted by thomcatspike at 3:25 PM on December 23, 2004

left the last part of my quoted comment out -
This is English class not History class.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:27 PM on December 23, 2004

Hardly a fair comparison, rush. Berry aimed to create rousing evocations of mid-50's teen America.

But I wasn't talking about Berry.
posted by rushmc at 5:30 PM on December 23, 2004

thomcatspike, I think Orb's dismay at your comment may be due to the fact that using literature to study things other than the formal elements of story telling has been the dominant mode before and since the demise of the "new criticism" mode of literary interpretation. Old-school literary interpretation focussed on the author and the time period of the work. New school interpretation focuses on politics, power, and a dozen other angles--all of them more concerned with meaning than style. The clear divide you'd like to place between English class and history class dissolved a long time ago.
posted by wheat at 6:21 PM on December 23, 2004

But I wasn't talking about Berry.

Then who were you talking about? Salinger?

Cos CitR did accurately evoke the ideas of the typical callow adolescent male better than anything else I've read, which is what i'm guessing is was Salinger's intention.
posted by jonmc at 7:08 PM on December 23, 2004

I think the great irony here is that she says she wants her son to discover things with her guidance... If she had let her son read the book with this class and at the same time read it herself and discussed it with him, that would have been possible.

Since she's too busy raising a stink, her son is (surely!) reading it on his own and she will never hear a word about it.

p.s. I read it in high school and I was bored silly by it.
posted by duck at 8:16 PM on December 23, 2004

Cos CitR did accurately evoke the ideas of the typical callow adolescent male better than anything else I've read

I'd say "keep reading," but you'd no doubt call me an elitist something-or-other.

But if it spoke to you, great. I'm sure you wouldn't like some of the books that have meant a lot to ME, either. But personally there wasn't one thing in it that rang true to me. I thought it was all phoney.

Anyway, we're straying rather far from the topic at hand. With regard to that, I think Miko's take is excellent.
posted by rushmc at 10:26 PM on December 23, 2004

First, I'll agree that the book's position as the incontrovertible bible of adolescence is undeserved, and I don't think it's such a titanic loss to the curriculum.

That said: I would like to sow salt in her eyelids, sew them shut and then skin her slowly while feeding her hot tar while the whole neighborhood watches. Don't you dare try and sell me the concerned parent tripe. Well-intending suburban cockroaches like herself have been the loyal support base of every fascistic tyrant in history, who knew well how to exploit the claustrophobic, domestic terror these bacterial humanoids feel every time something vaguely alien or different makes itself manifest.
posted by ori at 1:46 AM on December 24, 2004

why do schools always choose "Catcher" - it's really just not that interesting. "9 stories" is a much better example of Salinger's work.
posted by radioamy at 2:27 AM on December 24, 2004

:::applauds ori's oratory:::
posted by rushmc at 8:18 AM on December 24, 2004

If that child is under sixteen he is being coerced by the state to attend school. I think that his mother should have some control over what he does there.

Take off your damn tin hat and grow up.

I don't mean to shock anyone, but there comes a time when you can no longer control everything that your child does, reads or thinks. There comes a time that you have to live in a society and cooperate with elements you might not understand. That comes a lot sooner than most parents think. Your child will not be irrevocably harmed by a bad novel or two. She or he might actually learn something from a few shocks and jolts. Explaining why you don't like something, is an opportunity to share your values, not a loss of control.

Teaching children to read novels is actually quite difficult, much less getting them to read what is assigned. I know this first hand, as does anyone who has taught English.
Surprise folks, there is no novel that is perfect-- it's either too hard, too easy, immoral, or non-inclusive. Sometimes you have to trust teachers.

9th grade is time when kids start to accept differences and to think on their own. This is a gradual process, trial and error. They don' t wake up one morning able to critique To a Light House , knowing what their values are, and able to judge situations. They are teenagers. The only way to keep them safe would be to drug them and lock them in a room with Candy Land and health food. Sadly, this is the direction this thread, and this country (the U.S.) is taking.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:52 AM on December 24, 2004

Why do schools insist on keeping an unchanging curriculum dating back to the last century? There must be some good contemporary literature out there! Get rid of CitR and add... oh, I dunno, howzabout Snowcrash or Oryx & Crake.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:41 AM on December 24, 2004

Because it would be silly to limit the curriculum to books published during the past 4 years?
posted by rushmc at 1:08 PM on December 24, 2004

It's equally silly to limit the curriculum to books published over thirty years ago, which seems to be the case.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:20 PM on December 24, 2004

Get rid of CitR and add... oh, I dunno, howzabout Snowcrash or Oryx & Crake.

The problems with those two books are that Snowcrash is of limited interest to anyone who isn't a computer geek, and Oryx & Crake is just a flash in the pan, much worse than Atwood's previous books, which I have seen on high school reading lists. But then, these were all Canadian high schools. In Canada, if you're not reading Margaret Atwood, you're reading Margaret Laurence.
posted by painquale at 3:47 PM on December 24, 2004

Snowcrash is akin to 1984 and Brave New World: it predicts a rather scary new world of walled cities, corporate overlords, cult control of the masses, and so on. I find it startling in its accuracy: not twenty miles from my single detached home is a endless tract of gated communities with clonehomes, and the powers the televangelists hold over the American public's mind is terrifyingly similar to the story's antagonist.

No idea about O&C; I generally find Atwood quite annoying. But it would make a great starting point for discussion of bioethical issues, neh?

And anyway, my point is that surely there are books published within the last decade that could be substituted for the books I was forced to read twenty-five years ago, and were already aged at that time.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:39 AM on December 25, 2004

Personally, I'm just tired of the negative Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. references and characterizations. Often wonder just how much time those who make them have spent in any of the southern states.
posted by Carbolic at 12:14 PM on December 27, 2004