I am terrible saddened by some of the letters that I saw in today's News Herald. That anyone would write in support of banning a book that he/she admittedly has not read is astounding. Each person should educate himself/herself before making a statement. If you think the book is inappropriate, you're entitle to your opinion. But if you haven't even read the book, you have no business make comments that might affect others.
About filth/Playboy/pornography: According to the Oxford University Press and Brittannica Concise Encyclopedia, pornography is anthing that is meant to cause sexual arousal. If you have read The Kite Runner, you know that the disputed passage is no no way intended to arouse. If it does give you a thrill, then there's something wrong with you.
About the Harry Potter series: I can remember my mom reading a story to me when I was little, and I'm sure that folks who think Harry is a bad influence would want it banned. It had magic in it. It had a witch in it. It even included a character who was supposed to cut out another character's heart. Yep, folks. I'm sure many of you would be shocked if you knew that your five year-olds were reading such non-Christian filth. Why don't you get up a petition? I'm sure you'll find lots of people who will support you in banning the story my mom read to me when they realize that it's probably in every school in the county. Yes sirree, that "Snow White" might turn me into a Satan worshipper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I heard someone mention this very point today. Some members of the board (and possibly the woman who spoke to the board, though I don't recall from BOE minutes and unlike some, I don't want to misquote) either mistakenly used the word "pornography", or they actually gained physical pleasure/arousal from The Kite Runner, in which case there are obviously bigger problems.
As stated by the previous blogger, I seriously doubt that the author's intent in describing the sodomy scene was to incite sexual arousal. Admittedly, I have not read the entire book, but I have read the allegedly "pornographic" scene and I've read interviews with the author re: his intended message, which in no way mentioned sexual arousal. Instead, the author talked about uncovering some of the horrors that have taken place in Afghanistan and how the witnessing of such an event can affect someone because of the moral dilemma that is presented.
P.S. Thanks to the Board members for posting the policy manual online, you know the policy manual that includes the media policy (THE ONE THEY DID NOT FOLLOW BY PULLING THE KITE RUNNER FROM SHELVES IMMEDIATELY). This is what is known as "situational irony", (when someone preaches about right/wrong, then completely ignores a policy written in black and white that outlines how to determine whether something is right/wrong). Check out the policy that was so conveniently posted on BCPS web pages, you'll see the media policy clearly outlined and how it was obviously violated in several ways.
Post a Comment