Death Comes For the Archbishop/Willa Cather ~ Part One

To clarify my stance (because after the last post, I thought clarification was probably needed), I am not anti-Catholic. I come from a halfsie background, one of my parents is Catholic and the other is Protestant. And I carry great disdain for both factions of Christianity equally. Mostly because they mimic each other so closely in their ridiculous rule minding and rule creating that it's laughable. Protestants have created as many ridiculous rules for their parishioners to follow as Catholics and they have their very own garb and vestments to wear. They have their own Catechism for kids, it's just called something different. I just find it odd that there are quite a few books on the Banned List that question Catholic practices and questioning them in a very vanilla, non threatening, anything but Takin'-It-To-The-Streets manner. Death Comes For the Archbishop was written in the 1920s for Pete's sake. Nothing written in the 20s should register on any 21st century person's offense radar.
True to artistic fashion, Cather's book is about a pioneer French priest, Father Latour, who sets out to set up Catholic shop in a part of the Southwest where country boundaries (US and Mexican) are gray (it's the 1850s) at the request of THE Catholic Church HQ in Rome. They are concerned that since the territory is largely uninhabited and quite uncivilized that the people, almost all Hispanic are amalgamating their Catholic beliefs with pagan rituals without proper religious instruction. Riveting material. Honestly, there are parts where I'm dying I'm drowning in so much Catholic theology. And it doesn't help that the priest's extremely mundane daily schedule (shocker there) is recorded in minuet detail. It's pre-Civil War at this point and yet the New Mexicans are very wary of Americans and do not trust them. They grill the Father about his time living 'amongst them' in Ohio. What is disappointing to me is how one dimensional the character of  Father Latour is as a priest. He writes to his family in France, ministers to the people and carries out domestic tasks. But he shows no real range of emotions. I'm not saying we should take our priest behavioral cues from The Thornbirds but obviously priests are not robots and essentially marrying yourself to the Church is not an arbitrary decision. I'm a third through the book and Father Latour has been made Vicar of New Mexico so it's still unclear who the Archbishop is or will be by story's end.

The Chocolate War - Part 2

I've had the book done for about a week now and honestly, I've been struggling with how to approach the second half of TCW. There have been about a million different angles rattling around in my head and I can't use all of them yet I cannot decide which ones are more important. Let me put it another way: I was grinding my teeth through the rest of the book. Not because of anything wildly offensive, although I didn't appreciate the author using the term 'eye raping' in reference to the guys from school leering at girls on the street. But the way the term was tossed around shows the age of the book. That would never fly now. And with good reason.
It was the animalistic, innate violent nature of mankind on display and on demand that disturbed me the most. In large part because of how in step it is with the current school conditions. Bullying, homophobia, cruel and sadistic violence waged on students by other students and condoned/facilitated by adults. It's all very current and all very apt for today's times. Very Lord of the Flies. And yes it is very harsh on the Catholic Church and Catholic schools but nothing too far fetching. Priests inciting violence among the social stratospheres in a school? Encouraging anti-social, sociopathic, animalistic, jungle-like behavior to accomplish one's agenda? Why is this so out of line where the Catholic Church is concerned? Knowing what we know now about what was going on in the CC in the 70s and 80s, none of this is slanderous by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess the real shocker is how unresolved the book leaves the reader. For a Catholic school, there is oddly enough no justice for the meek. They don't inherit the Earth. There are no just desserts. The guy doesn't get the girl in this book. Not that we know of. While individual students---some saints, some not---show great insight as to what their puppet master teachers are really scheming, they fall in line with group-think. They know the truth, they know what it looks like and they can call by name but choose not to because of fear. Of course they are teenagers---no loyalty whatsoever in that bunch no matter what decade they exist in. They're not accustomed to fighting their own moral and ethical battles, much less against teachers. They just want a short term solution to an immediate distress. Violence through exploitation.
I guess what ultimately is most troubling to me is why parents would seek to extinguish this book. Its accounts while written in 1974 go on every day in today's world. Children hiding violence and bullying from their parents because of fear. Bullying being plain ignored from both sides. Parents refusing to admit their child is a bully or exhibits bullying behavior or being blinded to the fact their child is a victim and teachers ignoring it because they just don't want to get involved or because they have their own agenda they're running. In Michigan alone there have been two public cases in recent months where a girl killed herself after enduring extreme bullying as a result of her accusations of rape committed by an older classmate. And a student being harassed by a teacher pushing his own agenda after the student disagreed with the teacher's stance. Over the years the names and details may change but the issues remain the same.

Book #2 will be Death Comes For the Archbishop by one of my favorite pioneer literature authors Willa Cather. I've decided to continue grinding my ax with the Catholic Church and this book seems to fit the bill.

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier - Part One

I chose The Chocolate War (TCW) because it has made the Top Ten Banned List for the past 10 years. It piqued my interest and going on preconceived notions (knowing nothing about the book), I assumed it would be a guy's perspective Gossip Girl book (Gossip Girl books permeate the list).
What jumped out at me when I began reading was the original publication date. 1974. Parent groups are wringing their hands over a book that 30 + years old. Honestly now. It's an old book and it shows. The setting is a Catholic all boys high school in the 70s. They reference marijuana often but they call it 'grass' which is such an antiquated Baby Boomer term that it makes me laugh. Reminds me of how my grandparents called their couch a davenport and my grandma's robe was a 'housecoat'. TCW has powerful concepts but the power of the concepts is definitely weakened significantly by dated terminology. It's pretty difficult to see an impressionable teen taking the book seriously or viewing it admirably when they know marijuana by the name grass.
The plot of the book revolves around the idea of bullying which is an issue that has been at the forefront of the media and an issue that I have strong feelings about (another reason I chose this book). But it addresses how bullying can be found at every level of society and how no one is really exempt from dealing with it in one way or another. Within the social stratosphere of the Catholic high school is a gang made of students who issue edicts to their classmates which must be obeyed even at high personal consequence. TCW is full of different perspectives, mostly from the students who are your typical Catholic school guys. Some of them are 'masters of their domains', some of them aren't. Women's role in the book is one in the background, part of the scenery and purely objectified. But nothing out of the ordinary for classic literature, just watered down misogyny at its blandest. Maybe sexual self exploration is what parents take issue with but unlike American Pie, it's not part of the main or even secondary storylines. It's stated matter-of-factly like the sky is blue and the book moves on.

Introduction: The Story Behind Reading The Stories

I started this blog after a close friend spoke to me about Banned Book Week not too long ago. Banned Book Week is sponsored by the ALA to raise awareness of how book banning affects children, their school libraries and public libraries. I've been out of school for quite a while so I laughed and asked something along the lines of who's wasting their time banning books with so much real evil in the world threatening children and the general public at large? Children are far from being in the throes of a reading epidemic that it almost seems like censoring records. What's the point? I joked that we should start a book club and only read books on the ALA's banned list. I was only joking of course. Book clubs are impossible to orchestrate (I know from experience) and like I said before, no one really likes to read anymore. They'll show up like clockwork if wine is served but don't expect much input or insight into books gone unread.
The idea of banned books kept rattling around in my head for a few weeks and for curiosity's sake, I Googled banned books and boy was I surprised at what I found. Uppity parents and people with nothing to do sure have their scales askew when it comes to what should be deemed 'inappropriate'. Everything from Where's Waldo? (yes the children's find-him book) to Howard Stern's autobiography Private Parts. To me it just didn't make sense. Why are we banning books from public libraries? Banning is the incorrect PR word however.  Too many negative connotations. Makes people believe right off the bat that we are no longer living in a free society. They like to say challenge, as if it makes the process less ridiculous.
I can understand parents not wanting Howard Stern's tawdry tomes in their children's elementary school. It's a book for adults. But why are people trying to parent other adults within the confines of a public library? Don't we have enough of that already in society? Cap and trade energy taxes, sin taxes, food taxes, gasoline taxes, all telling the average citizen from the other end of a wagging finger that 'they' just don't approve and the citizen will be punished. But what may be offensive to you is not necessarily offensive to me.
What really pushed me from mere observation to genuine outrage was when I read that many of the classics I read in high school and college were on the list. In fact Steinbeck and Fitzgerald were repeat offenders on the Banned list. I was shocked that J.R.R.Tolkien made the list as well. Apparently his Christian apologist background wasn't overt enough within the story's plot to excuse away the presence of mythical creatures and magic. Oh no, we can't have children using their imaginations! Steinbeck continues to be one of my favorite authors and his coarse accounts of fictional life in the Salinas Valley have kept me riveted through rainy afternoons and cross country plane trips. And while his books aren't appropriate for elementary school libraries, they have every right to have a permanent place in high school and public libraries for everyone to enjoy. Futuristic Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, a book I discovered in high school and that changed the way I look at life from that day on, was also on the 'those we don't speak of' list. At that point I was livid. There is no way most children would be able to understand the adult implications made and situations referenced in BNW. Most kids aren't that high functioning when it comes to reading so I believe most of these books are hysterical PowerPoints for what are known as Helicopter parents. Parents who continually hover without letting their children experience any of the unpleasant or contrary issues in life. These aren't oopsy situations where a first grader brings home Of Mice And Men and starts reading it of his own accord. These are lazy and overprotective parents who are preemptively striking libraries to save themselves parenting time and panic.
When I was in the third grade, I brought home a book called The Girl With The Silver Eyes about a girl who is telepathic and has the ability to read animals' minds and also move objects with her mind. It was a book geared to elementary school children but my mom took one look at it and thought she didn't want me reading about evil mind control (SO not what the book was about but whatever, it was a good twenty odd years ago). She nixed it and had me take it back to the library. End of story. My mom monitored my reading habits until I was in high school at which point she figured that I needed to develop my own discernment to be a responsible adult one day. When I was a junior in high school a fellow student got a well liked English teacher in hot water for having the class read The Color Purple. A classic anointed by Oprah herself. That book is standard fare in any public college. The teacher later left the district which was a terrible loss of a phenomenal teacher. When I went away to college, I became an English Lit major which meant I had to read a lot of crap I hated and found immaterial to the course and some stuff that was downright offensive but I also developed my own opinions about topics through the discussions and papers I had to write on said books. Plus it's all part of living within a society and using discernment. And some ridiculous, convoluted paranoia about encountering something offensive in a book doesn't stop me from reading. Reading is a favorite pastime and how I spent a great deal of my childhood. Parents need to do their jobs as parents and monitor their own children's reading habits. But MYOB needs to be respected as well. You don't have authority on what my child or someone else's child has access to read. Your child may be sheltered enough to believe vampires are real or you may be extremely religious and don't care for mythical fiction altogether. Fine. There are Boxcar Children books that are very milquetoast. (Although on second thought, I think they're orphans so you may feel uncomfortable with your child being faced with that reality. Sorry.) But if I've already had the vampires aren't real talk with my kids and I've read the Twilight books and think they are fine for my kids, don't exercise your non-existent parental rights over my children (who are hypothetical at this point) and what they have access to read. Parents need to do their own job with their own kids about what is acceptable and have discussions with their children about the whys.
So why am I here? Well as a reader as well as an English major, I've read a lot of the books on the Banned Classics list as well as the top 100 banned books from 1990 to 2009. A lot but not all. And not many from the last few years. So I just can't resist the idea of weighing in on what passes for banned books here in 21st century America. My goal is to spend the next year reading 20 (this seemed like a nice round number, setting the bar not too high and not too low--hopefully) books I selected from the Banned list and blogging about them right here. My expectations are relatively fluid and yet to be determined at this point. Just taking it book by book. What this WON'T be is a bunch of book reports. I did more than my share of book reports in elementary school and middle school. And even high school. So I'm quite finished in that arena here and forevermore. I'll probably blog two to three times per book depending on if there's much to blog about. And so begins my journey into (apparently) the dangerous world of books....