Non-Fiction Blog Post Reading Response: Are Banned Books Actually Bad?

Stefan Engquist 812         

            Sherman Alexi’s article, “Why the Best Kids Books are written in Blood,” a response to Meghan Cox Gurdon’s article, explains that books should not be banned because of exposure of domestic violence, drug abuse, poverty, and many other things because these are what makes the best books. She thinks that books don’t actually disturb kids who may or may not live through tough conditions, because the kids actually enjoy these books. She uses her own book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, which has been banned across the country, as an example to support her claim. She says that almost every day, she receives many letters from students, including teens and pre-teens, saying they loved her book but Alexi said that “I have never received a letter from a child debilitated by the domestic violence, racism, poverty…” She also uses her many encounters with kids who have gone through things book bans are trying to protect kids from. She claims that these kids are inspired by her book, and not negatively affected in any way.

           Sherman Alexi uses a very sarcastic and surprised tone in a lot of the article, as if she was making fun of book bans and Gurdon's opinion. She says things like "does Ms. Gurdon honestly believe that a sexually explicit YA novel might somehow traumatize a teen mother?" She uses this tone to show her view on book bans; she thinks the reasons books are banned are ridiculous and don't effect kids much at all. Alexi also addresses a common counterclaim very well by using short stories. The proponents of book bans claim that the bans are protecting kids from many horrors of the world. Alexi argues against this be recalling many conversations she's had with kids who can't be protected because they already live in poverty or go through abuse or many other things. She criticizes Gurdon by saying "Does she believe a dystopian novel will frighten a kid who already lives in hell?" She uses this approach for a counterclaim because she thinks that reading books about monstrous things will help kids battle monsters in their life.

           I definitely agree with Sherman Alexi's claim and opinion because there were some lines in her article that stood out to me as great reasons why books should not be banned. "And there are millions of teens who read because they are sad and lonlely and enraged. They read because they live in an often-terrible world. They read because they believe, despite the protestations of callow adults, that books-especially the dark and dangerous ones-will save them." These lines mean that many many kids read books that are often banned, because it helps them deal with their conflicts because they can relate to those issues. Thats why these lines stood out to me, because kids out their need those dark books in their lives. Also, her YA book is one of my favorite books, and I would hate if it was banned in my area or school district.