so, could you pass me that oar, n-word jim?

So the Canadian Library Association just released it's survey of challenged books for 2007. In other words, these are the 42 books and movies people tried to get pulled off the shelves in libraries across Canada. The full story and the report can be found here, but I'll fill you in on the important bits.

Most of the entries are novels that contain sexually explicit material, and I think you all know my opinion on that. It's ridiculous, a waste of time, sexuality is a right etc. etc. The highlight here is the 2007 film adaptation of Oliver Twist by Masterpiece Theatre. Yes, the Masterpiece Theatre, a pillar of the bland highbrow community. The nature of the complaint: some violence and a graphic birth scene. A birth scene. You know, the kind of thing that every person in history has gone through, and one that many women will experience twice. This natural human function--which I might add, many people film when it happens to them--got the Masterpiece Theatre adaptation of Oliver Twist reclassified as 'Adult'.

There are a few other gems, such as a three books whose sole complaint against them was that they contained homosexuality, including one with the additional charge of 'same sex parents'. Furthermore, a book entitled 'Open minds to equality: a sourcebook of learning activities to affirm diversity and promote equality' was challenged by what the CLA tactfully calls an 'interest group' largely due to it's portrayal of homophobia as a negative thing. Thankfully, none of these books were pulled or had changes in status, except for the diversity book--which was taken out of school libraries and is now solely in public ones.

Another book was challenged because it contained slang, which apparently is damaging to children. It's a picture book called 'Yo, Jo!', which is about two brothers in a downtown neighborhood, I'm guessing New York because that's where the author lives. It's a sweet story about how everyone on the block has a different way of saying hello, such as 'yo!'. I've only read excerpts from the book (yay for the internet) but it seems most of the 'damaging slang' is simply examples of African American Vernacular English, a perfectly legitimate manner of speaking. I'm not charging this complainer with being racist, I'm just pointing out that the English language is far from standardized.

I have two major bones to pick though. The first is a challenge against Chris Ware's incredible alternative comic 'ACME Novelty Library', since it contains references to the occult as well as sex scenes. Now, there is no doubt this is intended for adults, it's a sophisticated series of slightly nihilistic and wistful stories, with disappointment and thwarted affection the order of the day. Now, before you dismiss this as just a comic book, I consider the collection 'Jimmy Corrigan, the smartest kid on earth' (which was serialized in this comics, and is actually about a grown man) one of the greatest books of all time. Book, not comic book. However, some feel that because in this absolutely brilliant work they mention witchcraft and occasionally have non-explicit sex it should be pulled from libraries.

Secondly is the increasingly popular His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullmam, mostly due to the fact that the first book, 'The Golden Compass', was made into an absolute mess of a movie--which proves any press is good press. These books were challenged multiple times due to the book's 'religious viewpoint'. For those who don't know (or who have seen the movie, in which most of that material was removed) this book details, through a child's eyes, a man's war against a God. The title of the trilogy is actually a reference to Milton's 'Paradise Lost', and it is a similar concept, except in Pullman's books the good guys are the one's rebelling. This is a children's book--well, young teens probably--yet sits proudly on my shelf, because it's simply amazing. J.K. Rowling eat Pullman's dust amazing. It presents some fairly tough questions about religion in a way that a thirteen year old could discuss them. Should it be banned? Of course not! It should be celebrated for encouraging children to think. Frankly, if a person's faith hangs is so precarious they are afraid of what a novel is going to do to themselves or their children, they need to reexamine the basis of their relationship with religion.

Right now we're in Freedom to Read Week, and I encourage you all to take the time to consider the effects books, and by extension all art and entertainment, can have. I'm all for happy endings and lighthearted romantic comedies. But it's just as necessary that our novels, music, movies and art depress us, offended us, and more importantly challenge us, forcing us to question ourselves and enviornments. Growth and self-discovery means stepping outside your comfort zone, and that can mean doing a few more pushups or to keep running after you thought your legs would give out. It also means entertaining thoughts that you don't accept, asking tough questions about the world you live in and how you go about your daily life. A sex scene that shocks you can lead to an examination of your own sexual values by exploring why you found it uncomfortable. Shielding yourself in a bubble of comfort is the surest way to stay exactly how you are, and where's the fun in that?

galavanting through the gutters on either side of the street

I'm going to perhaps state the obvious here.

I'm pro same sex marriage. I'm also for more funding of education and am a strong supporter of universal medicine, as well as for restructuring the global economy and reigning in multinational corporations. I vote NDP.

Wait, hold up, press the delete key if this wasn't just a rhetorical device. That last one doesn't belong, I'm not talking about politics.

Political issues are how to spend the surplus, debt payments, foreign policy (within reason, whether a nationalized energy company would serve the public better. In essence, political issues are how the run the country, public servants--and I know this is a radical suggestion--doing something that even resembles serving the public.

So why isn't same sex marriage a political issue? I mean, there are votes about it and Stephen Harper gets that charming little vein in his forehead every time he says "civil union". It is not the business of politicians because it is not the business of any of us. To paraphrase Dolly Parton, what Adam and Steve get up to behind closed doors is no concern of yours unless you'r e in there with them. It has nothing to do with running the country, and would have absolutely no impact except for the fact that people insist on talking about it.

Issues like this, or other fundamental rights like education and access to health care, are hijacked by special interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum in order to win or maintain power. Whipping up controversy is the surest way to gain votes, especially when it demonizes the other side. Alternatively, there are many people who seek the unfairly and unethically profit from such issues and by bringing it up in a political context the situation is more easily manipulated.

Many people seem to forget that no matter who wins the election, the other side doesn't go away, that is to say we all run the country together, and each party just gets to take turns wearing the big boy pants. Politics is supposed to be a reasoned discussion on the best course for the people, not about the profit or advantage of select groups. I'm sick of being lied to and the real issues being distracted from. The citizenry is stuck in the middle of a smoke and mirrors funhouse that prevents anything from actually getting done--just feigned moral outrage and unnecessary invasions for the purposes of media spin. So don't worry about Adam and Steve, they're the least of our worries.