Before we head into today’s discussion, Cul de sac would like to invite all you Chicago writers to a weekly writers group featuring members of our magazine and other authors who work together to better their craft. Email kevin[at]culdesacmag(dot)com for more info, and check this shiz out for guidelines on submitting your entries to this CWW series.
Summer has officially ended, and the chilly weather we’ve been experiencing is the perfect excuse to stay at home and curl up with good book (it’s been proven that curled is the best position in which to read). If you’re having trouble deciding, why not check the American Library Association’s list of banned books? Sunday marked the start of ALA’s annual Banned Books Week, which concludes Saturday, October 3.
Chicago Trib literary columnist Julia Keller wrote a swell piece to commemorate this year’s week about the possible motivations of book banners, and her words must have struck home, especially when she writes, “Deep down, I imagine, book banners don’t really want to ban any books; they want the world to acknowledge their beliefs and convictions. The books to which they object just happen to constitute a handy stage for the dramatization of their manifestoes.” The Illinois Family Institute issued a rebuttal to this story, and part of their focus is pretty clearly on keeping children from reading books that discuss same-sex relationships or gender identity. IFI’s Laurie Higgins writes, in a meme taken from anti-marriage equality forces, “they are asking that teachers not read controversial picture books to young children who could not understand the presuppositions implicit in them even if teachers were to unpack them, which they wouldn’t because ‘progressive’ book banners would likely have a conniption if they did.” This roundabout way of discussing the perceived controversy of books like And Tango Makes Three and King & King leads into a broader analysis, but much of it is focused on limiting profanity and sexual content while dismissing violence as a more serious hazard. IFI claims through a priori argument that “[Keller] fails to address the real possibility that a teen who reads books that explore the pleasures and moral legitimacy of promiscuous sex will more likely embrace promiscuity than will a teen who reads books about ax murderers come to embrace murder…” And trying to dodge that issue, Higgins resorts to this doggerel: “For those who believe that homosexuality is not ontologically analogous to race and that volitional homosexual acts are profoundly immoral–as immoral, for example, as polyamory — having their children exposed to positive images of or ideas about homosexuality represents a grave and presumptuous moral offense. Imagine this scenario: Parents discover that during library time, their child has chosen the book Heather Has Two Mommies and Three Daddies or Heather Wishes She Knew and Could Be Raised by Her Biological Mommy and Daddy or Heather is Sad Because Daddy left Mommy So He Could Disfigure His Body and Wear Women’s Clothes.”
I agree with Keller that book banners are only ideologues trying to put forth their (rather limited) ideas; she brought up no mention of these books, nor discussed homosexual content as a factor in banning at all. But somehow, IFI felt that she was lodging a personal attack against those who believe homosexuality is wrong and decided the best way to respond was to degrade LGBT people to signify that withholding ideas from others is acceptable. For all their intolerance of the community, IFI seems to think more about homosexuality and transgender people more than HRC or GLAAD.





