I welcome book challenges because I think that open debate illuminates underlying rationales. It separates the subjective rationales from the objective ones. This is not to say that all subjective rationales are invalid, but just because a book offends a particular personal sensibility does not give reason to move or remove it.

The Annoyed Librarian had a post up about this lately as well. I happen to agree with you — I think ALA et al are making a big self-serving fuss about something that is essentially not a big deal. No one would say that a book that happens to be not available in one particular library is “banned” — even within our libraries, no one expects any one library location to have EVERYTHING. That’s why we have ILL. And “collection development policies” will exclude things more often than customer complaints.

I actually think patrons should be allowed to challenge books — isn’t that part of the free speech we’re supposed to be all fired up about? Especially because in 6 out of 7 cases, those challenges DID NOT result in books being removed.

(1) I guess market alternatives are not the happiest solution that people would embrace past the public library. I see it as a ‘next best thing’ solution as the material is not simply limited. Yes, this does restrict access for gay teens, but I would hope that a gay advocacy group could step in and cover the difference. It is not from a lack of trying that book is not kept within easy access.

(2) Perhaps “through the roof” is a bit of an overstatement. But they certainly sold more than they would have without the controversy. It is pretty relative as well; if the book had sold 10 copies, then had a challenge, and sold 10 more copies, that would be an increase of 100%. If it sells more than it would have ordinarily, then it’s a win in my book.

I’m not concerned about library self-censorship as a whole. As an organization with a finite amount of resources, decisions must be made as to what to include or exclude. Under these parameters, I don’t think any librarian would escape criticism as to their choices of materials to add to the collection.

1) The fact that a book is still available misses the point. Practically no books are truly “banned” in today’s commercial marketplace. But libraries are places for free access of information, and banning a book there does indeed keep it out of people’s hands–I’m thinking here primarily of books for gay teens.

2) Yes, banning fusses often give a book publicity and sales, but “through the roof” is overstating it. Of the books on the banned books banner you show, some are “hits” with huge sales (Carrie, Light in the Attic, American Psycho) and some are time-tested classics, but many, maybe even most of them, have never hit a best seller chart.

I’m a little surprised you didn’t bring up the issue of library self-censorship, in the form of selection (and necesary passing over) of books, but I guess that’s a whole other blog post.