I was primarily concerned about the euro-centric bias of indigenous Australians history material for my ancient history class (8 April, 2024). However, my librarian work at a private girls’ school has seen parental complaints over certain titles. This has prompted me to consider the accuracy of a selection criteria. In terms of censorship, I was surprised to find that books inciting the most objections globally were those that dealt with because LGBTQI+ relationships (Favaloro, 2014), whereas before I would have connected censorship with the level of sexual content and violence in a book. Yet parents have expressed their concern over books that deal with teenage suicide or mental health issues, such as ‘13 reasons why’ by Jay Asher, or ‘The perks of being a wallflower’ by Stephen Chbosky.
The popularity of such novels has given birth to the genre term ‘sick-lit.’ Mental trauma is controversial content, but is the problem its existence in the book, or does it matter how it is described? For example, in the Harry Potter series, it is logical to imagine that the main characters should be traumatised from their adventures, yet this trauma is never addressed. Does then trauma become an issue when it is vicerally represented in a book, so that the reader experiences the same as they read, but without describing the recovery? Scrofano (2019) concludes that the majority of sick-lit is problematic in this was as it focusses on the character suffering from major disruption from mental health symptoms without showing any process of recovery and working through their suffering and advises that it would be necessary in young adult fiction as a teaching point. Elman (2012) adds that there is a deficit of young adult fiction demonstrating how to deal with their emotions rather than how to feel them. Lawler (2017) reports on the opinion that this type of narrative focussing on suffering but not recovery has been created deliberately to be provocative or sensationalised.
This point would have serious repercussions on selection criteria, which will always be a subjective decision as it is impossible to define how relatable a reader can find the narrative. It would also put heavy responsibility on the teacher librarian as the interpreter of such selection criteria with such works of fiction. Recently questions also have been raised about the provision of Colleen Hoover’s work, who very much ‘blurs the line between young adult and adult fiction’ (Bacon, 2024) as her writing has been accused of glorifying the traumatic subjects of abuse, mental illness and drugs (Foster, 2023) which would make her problematic when compared to a selection criteria. However, the fact is that her books are amongst the most popular in the library, and therefore her work does appear to be driving the wider reading for pleasure of students who were typically reluctant readers. This matches Binns (2024) point over where is the correct balance between protecting students and encourage them with their wider reading.
Does the self-censorship with Dawkins (2018) and Clarke (2024) discuss become problematic as well when the generational gap between librarians and readers becomes more visible. For example, I have considered if the recent trend of censorship and the banning of books is down to a global trend of dramatically increasing political polarisation (Gu & Wang, 2021; Kleinfeld, 2023; Lambert, 2022) and if I might need to take this into account with the selection criteria section of a Collection Development Policy in the future. My understanding of the role of school library collections has changed in that collection management seems to revolve unexpectedly around the issue of bias and censorship. In turn, would this make collection management a much more dynamic process than at present (19 May, 2024) and that monitoring books in anticipation of challenges to the selection become a more regular occurrence? Would this also mean that there is a gap in the market for a selection aid that would help material selection based on political leanings? (8 April, 2024b).
References
Bacon, K. (2024, April 30). Re: Forum 6.2 post [Online forum post]. Interact. https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?course_id=_71809_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&requestType=unread_user_forum&conf_id=_150287_1&action=collect_forward&origRequestId=549205860_1716375444322&forum_id=_334909_1&status=unread&
Binns, J. (2024, May 3). Censorship [Online forum post]. Interact.https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?course_id=_71809_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&requestType=unread_user_forum&conf_id=_150287_1&action=collect_forward&origRequestId=548811630_1716196827755&forum_id=_334909_1&status=unread
Clarke, B. (2024, May 5). Key takeaways from the readings on Censorship [Online forum post]. Interact. https://interact2.csu.edu.au/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?course_id=_71809_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&requestType=unread_user_forum&conf_id=_150287_1&action=collect_forward&origRequestId=549205860_1716375444322&forum_id=_334909_1&status=unread&
Favaloro, R. In ‹ My bona fide TL journey is only just beginning. . . — WordPress. (2024, April 28). https://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/rebeccafavaloro/2024/04/28/etl503-module-4-censorship/
Foster, K. (2023). The controversy of Colleen Hoover. The Arrow. https://www.southeastarrow.com/entertainment/the-controversy-of-colleen-hoover-2982211
Gu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Income inequality and global Political polarization: The economic origin of political polarization in the world. Journal of Chinese Political Science/Chinese Journal of Political Science, 27(2), 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-021-09772-1
Kleinfeld, R. (2023). Polarisation, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. Carnegie Endowment for Internation Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en
Lambert, N. J. (2022). Collections under Fire: When the culture war comes for the school library. American Libraries, 53(6), 59. https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/collections-under-fire-when-culture-war-comes/docview/2672786755/se-2
Lawler, K. (2017, May 6). Is 13 Reasons Why more controversial than other pop culture depictions of suicide? The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/is-13-reasons-why-more-controversial-than-other-pop-culture-depictions-of-suicide-