Letters to the Editor

I found your argument (“Here’s Why It’s Censorship,” Editorial) for why it is censorship not to purchase certain books to be disingenuous. One branch of our library orders more Christian and “gentle read” books; that is what checks out so that is what is selected. They don’t order R. L. Stine books because they are not read. This is the same reason another branch orders R. L. Stine but forgoes most Christian and easy reading. These are both selection decisions based on what the librarians believe their patrons want. These are not censorship decisions.

You state that there is a “law of libraryland” saying you can’t exclude a book because you don’t approve of one of the words it uses. There is no such law. You state that it is in article 2 of ALA’s Library Bill of Rights. That may very well be so, but the ALA is not a lawmaking body. The Library Bill of Rights is, in my understanding, meant to be a guideline, not a set of laws. You should have argued strictly on the merits of the book rather than trying to justify your reasoning with hyperbole. This only serves to discredit your whole line of reasoning.

Victoria Remides
Library Associate, Ouachita Parish Public Library
West Monroe, Louisiana

Roger Sutton responds:
I agree that purchasing books based on your patrons’ preferences is not censorship — unless you avoid purchasing books that would make some patrons happy while causing others to complain. And the Library Bill of Rights is indeed enshrined in the official governing policies of many public libraries in the United States, including that of the Ouachita Parish Public Library.

March/April 2007 Horn Book

I try to keep from getting involved with published commentaries on matters relating to children’s books (“Featured Review: The Invention of Hugo Cabret”), but every once in a while the fingers itch and I can’t resist. A puzzlement, indeed! What box do we drop Hugo Cabret into? Oh, the mischief we created when we invented labels in an attempt to define the infinite objects of our world! I suggest that we have only a single literary mode with which to communicate narratives. Story is at the core. We fool ourselves if we think that pictures tell stories. Language tells stories. We must translate the pictures into language to tell a story to others (or even to ourselves). If Hugo’s tale were considerably shorter, it would have landed in the Caldecott box. I suggest that length is a if not the determining factor in labeling.

Kenneth Marantz
Columbus, Ohio

Letters to the Editor | Send a Letter to the Editor