As you may be aware, this week marks our nation’s annual celebration of banned books and our unmitigated freedom to access (as expressed by the American Library Association) “unorthodox or unpopular” materials.
It’s a salute, then, to our freedom to read ‘em — to our “fREADom,” in other words.
In this sense, Banned Books Week pays homage to what Justice William J. Brennan Jr. judged to be the First Amendment’s “bedrock principle” in the landmark case Texas v. Johnson — chiefly, that the government may not “prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
It’s definitely a principle worth honoring — hence Middleton Library’s monthlong intellectual freedom exhibit. But Banned Books Week is perhaps most appropriately commemorated by reading the suppressed materials.
That is assuredly not going to happen at the University, of course — not a Bible’s chance in Communist Russia, even. I thus give to you my own SparkNotes-style version of the ALA’s registry of banned and challenged books — what shouldn’t have been banned, of course, and what should be.
What shouldn’t have been banned: “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut (1969). Celebrated for its satirical consideration of fate, free will and reason, Vonnegut depicted protagonist Billy Pilgrim’s becoming “unstuck in time.” Partly set during the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany, during World War II, the book is routinely challenged for its purportedly irreverent and obscene treatment of that conflict. Please.
What should be: “Rainbow Six” by Tom Clancy (1998). Clancy’s techno-thriller also features soldiers, depicting the “blacker than black” covert “ops” of a super-awesome, ultra-elite international jet-setting unit of invincible counterterrorism bros that saves hostages from miscellaneous “bad guys” and defeats radical tree-hugging eco-terrorists seconds before they destroy humanity. Seriously, that’s the plot.
What shouldn’t have been banned: “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury (1953). It’s ironic that Bradbury’s dystopian novel portraying a future America that prohibits reading is, in fact, similarly challenged. In a word, “Fahrenheit 451” is hot, both in terms of its content — burning books to suppress dissent, for instance — and in terms of its critique of American society.
What should be: “An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It” by Al Gore (2006). What’s not hot, in turn, is the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, though Gore all but predicted 451-degree heat worldwide. Gore, like Bradbury, seemed to be criticizing American society in the book — less successfully, of course.
What shouldn’t have been banned: “The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger (1951). “The Catcher in the Rye” is immensely popular among adolescent readers for its bold examination of teenage angst, alienation and rebellion. Oh, and its profanity and sexuality, too, which account for its frequently being challenged by schools and parents.
What should be: “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” by Tucker Max (2006). Comprised of short stories narrated by Max and similarly revered by adolescents, “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” is principally concerned with sex, drugs and violence. In fact, it’s a less sincere version of “The Catcher in the Rye” — less authentic, too, in spite of the fact that it’s nonfiction.
Here’s the point: no book, passage or word, even, ought to be suppressed, in spite of what’s said above, and you don’t have to read any of the ALA’s banned and challenged books to understand that bedrock principle. A week’s observance of our freedom to access unorthodox and unpopular materials, though, is a great reminder.
Phil Sweeney is a 25-year-old English senior from New Orleans. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_PhilSweeney.
 
—-
Contact Phil Sweeney at [email protected]