For many of you, the title and cover alone will suffice. On Book Banning is timely and relevant, balanced and engaging.
Picture Ira Wells, in a children’s school library with a bunch of parents in 2022—just imagine him, sitting in one of those tiny chairs, his knees nearly up to his ears—listening to the principal lament outline the procedure for a library audit and lament that she can’t just get rid of “all the old books”.
He felt unsettled, but found himself unable to rally the reasons for his discomfort, unable to express his concerns. This book grows out of that experience, out of his determination to articulate why literature matters and what risks are posed by censorship.
[What makes this series so enjoyable is the blend of anecdotal accounting with facts and figures. The authors share their personal experiences alongside facts: sources are cited and the endnotes are wide-ranging and relevant. Not so formally that you couldn’t read it on a commuter train, but it’d be hard to focus in Union Station.]
Being bookish, much of this information was familiar, but Wells both synthesises and elaborates skillfully. So, for instance, there’s a single chapter that summarises “Two Thousand Years of Censorship in the West” in about thirty pages (the whole book is about 175 pages). This chapter made me nervous—but it was not only interesting but essential to a broader understanding.
He’s also willing to get into the weeds as with his detailed outline of the 2023 culling of thousands of books in school libraries in Peel County (west of Toronto, Ontario). In this instance, libraries were motivated by a progressive political agenda. Among other guidelines, they removed all books published more than fifteen years ago, aiming to prioritise the needs of the students rather than the needs of the teachers (who might be emotionally attached to these older books said to be harming students).
According to this policy, one of the books most frequently banned by conservatives in the United States, Angie Thomas’ The Hate U Give, would be eligible for “weeding” in 2032. (Handy euphemism but, according to the American Library Association, this isn’t weeding, it’s censorship. Weeding occurs when a book is MUSTIE, in which each of the letters stands for a matter of functionality not morality.)
“No one, it seems, self-identifies as a book banner – not even those working to remove books from libraries.” Wells includes enough examples of individuals working to “protect children” from “harm” from different perspectives—progressive and conservative—to illustrate the broader point. Can’t remove something you don’t like from the world? Well, maybe you can remove it from a library instead.
Censorship “works as symbolic practice, as means for the book banners to announce what they would extirpate from the library, and not only from the library.” Your public library likely has a record of the challenges made by community members, the demands to have books removed from the shelves. Ask your librarian to point you towards the webpage/PDF; if you think this isn’t happening in your community, you’ll be surprised.
There are big ideas about legality and philosophy, talk of literary controversies and addictive technologies that erode the importance of literacy, and consideration of how concepts like “obscenity” and “pornography” change over generations. But it doesn’t feel over-stuffed, with the overall thrust of the narrative consistently in view. “Where literature opens conversations, censorship closes them. Where literature provokes questions, censorship insists upon answers.”
The parts I most enjoyed were the references to relevant (and recent) events and publications: the pending changes outlined in the American administration’s Heritage Foundation priorities (better known as Project 2025) and books published as recently as late-2024. And there are details about specific bans and specific titles (they make a great reading list, if you’re so inclined). Just the book I needed to read right now: both from the headlines and from the heart.
“At its core, censorship is the primal expression of a desire to obliterate the Other, who displeases us by continuing to exist.”
If this troubles you, but you find it hard to express your reasons, Wells can help. Hot off the Biblioasis press today. Trade PB and epub.
Perfect timing for Freedom to Read Week.
#ReadIndies
This sounds like a fascinating read. Your mentioning about libraries reminded me of when I used to work at the library and the staff would get pushback about book displays for banned books and other themed topics. It’s time for people to wake up and realize just how many books are being challenged and the increasing censorship that’s happening today.
I like the sound of it but the issue with this kind of books is it preaches to the choir. The best thing would be for it to be read by non bookish people.
That assumes that only non-bookish people employ/practice censorship, but considering the example of the librarians in the school board west of Toronto, these are bookish people, bookish people with progressive values even (whereas I think a lot of progressive people believe that only conservatives ban books, I used to believe that too). There are also plenty of bookish folk, passionate readers, who censor and seek to ban from public schools and libraries books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for instance. (Maybe this is less common in France?) It would fit very well with the talk/interview you attended a few months ago!
Oh, this sounds really good!
I think you’d appreciate On Browsing and On Community too. (Well, probably all of them, heheh, but those in particular.) Weren’t you just reading their Notebook book?
I was reading a different Notebook book, The Notebook: a History of Thinking on Paper
That’s it: one of theirs! They’re also behind Lucy Ellman’s doorstopper (which I think you enjoyed as well?).
This sounds fascinating- I like the idea of it being approached in this philosophical and anecdotal manner, rather than simply being alarmist.
The historical context provides some stability (that’s where the European elements figure most prominently too) and the author’s evenhandedness is rare in this culture. I suspect many people think this isn’t a concern in Canada, in liberal democratic countries, so that’s exposed here too.