Obscenity
I have something obscene sitting on my desk at work. Shocking, I know. But there it is. Or at least according to these fine, upstanding citizens it's obscene.
What is this obscenity? Shield your eyes children, for here it is:
Yes, it's a graphic novel. Personally, I'd maybe call this one R-rated. But apparently a couple library employees in Kentucky felt it was their duty to shield the community and an 11-year-old from being exposed to this execrable work, which was given a starred review by Publisher's Weekly and named as one of the 10 best graphic novels of 2007 by Time. Indeed, it was so insidious that it was necessary to pray over the reader to prevent the images from penetrating the purity of her mind. It's utterly laughable to me that a few drawings of boobs and copulation without parts visible would cause this sort of reaction. Don't get me wrong, I don't think an 11-year-old should read this. And having read the book myself, I don't think she'd enjoy it very much either. It's probably over the heads of some adults (as this entire incident maybe demonstrates). But shouldn't the parent's first question to the 11-year-old upon her return from the library be "so what did you get?" And shouldn't the parent then investigate a title that doesn't quite look right? As a librarian, I'm committed to putting works that the community and experts believe to be important on my shelves. That means that I've got Lady Chatterly's Lover and this graphic novel on the shelves, as well as the latest Ann Coulter and Glen Beck (far more offensive to me, personally). But it's not my job to judge these works' morality or quality. I'm in the business of providing access to information, and these employees should have been too. The worst part of this story to me is the arrogance displayed by these two in believing that they were better suited to determine what that girl could read than her own parents, let alone what the whole community could read. Apparently the book was purchased at a patron's request, so clearly someone in the community wanted to read it. What made these two think that they knew better than the person who wanted to read the book? Even though I find the aforementioned works by Beck and Coulter as execrable as these two found the graphic novel, I'm not going to tell someone they can't read them. I can't help but think that we'd all be better off if we just lived and let live.
Yes, it's a graphic novel. Personally, I'd maybe call this one R-rated. But apparently a couple library employees in Kentucky felt it was their duty to shield the community and an 11-year-old from being exposed to this execrable work, which was given a starred review by Publisher's Weekly and named as one of the 10 best graphic novels of 2007 by Time. Indeed, it was so insidious that it was necessary to pray over the reader to prevent the images from penetrating the purity of her mind. It's utterly laughable to me that a few drawings of boobs and copulation without parts visible would cause this sort of reaction. Don't get me wrong, I don't think an 11-year-old should read this. And having read the book myself, I don't think she'd enjoy it very much either. It's probably over the heads of some adults (as this entire incident maybe demonstrates). But shouldn't the parent's first question to the 11-year-old upon her return from the library be "so what did you get?" And shouldn't the parent then investigate a title that doesn't quite look right? As a librarian, I'm committed to putting works that the community and experts believe to be important on my shelves. That means that I've got Lady Chatterly's Lover and this graphic novel on the shelves, as well as the latest Ann Coulter and Glen Beck (far more offensive to me, personally). But it's not my job to judge these works' morality or quality. I'm in the business of providing access to information, and these employees should have been too. The worst part of this story to me is the arrogance displayed by these two in believing that they were better suited to determine what that girl could read than her own parents, let alone what the whole community could read. Apparently the book was purchased at a patron's request, so clearly someone in the community wanted to read it. What made these two think that they knew better than the person who wanted to read the book? Even though I find the aforementioned works by Beck and Coulter as execrable as these two found the graphic novel, I'm not going to tell someone they can't read them. I can't help but think that we'd all be better off if we just lived and let live.
Comments
Never mind that the game allowed you to shoot people in the head in a huge mass of bloody gore.
Guns are fun kids! But remember that God will smite you if you touch yourself!