Thank you. Once upon a time it was a point of honor for people who worked in bookstores and libraries to defend books and authors with unpopular views.
I was a consultant to the library world for 40+ years and a contributing editor, reviewer, and columnist for The Bloomsbury Review (TBR) for about 14 years. TBR was an independent book magazine focusing on small, regional, and academic presses in the US and Canada. Also, back in the day, I helped found and manage an independent bookstore in the Midwest before I moved to Denver in 1975. We were proud that we sold books that other bookstores would not have on their shelves, including bilingual children's books, authors representing the gay and lesbian communities at the time as well as self-published books with right- and left-leaning political slants.
I visited libraries and bookstores throughout the United States and worked with state and national professional library and book-related associations. Increasingly, I heard and saw good people, who wanted a better world, advocate for removing books considered unworthy from shelves and to censor their authors. I found it hard to relate to their concerns. I don't think silencing ideas improves the world.
I admit it can be a fuzzy line deciding to not acquire a book because of subjective issues such as "quality" or because a book does not fit the current collection development guidelines versus not agreeing with an author's POV. And I have witnessed my share of clashes between library users and staff over favorite (meaning old) books removed from the shelves to make room for the new. However what you describe, in my opinion, is different and not just about the practicalities of limited shelf space and the changing interests of readers.
Sooo....basically you're saying that an organization that can freely decide what it wants to adhere to is somehow lowering the standard by choosing to be inclusive? Ok Elon Musk. You sound exactly how he did when stating that the standards for being a pilot were lowered because DEI was something they believed in. Standards for art were not lowered because more people are being considered.
Just be honest and say you dont think everyone deserves a fair shot because people dont want to be called out for their terrible takes; takes that harm actual, human people. If someone chooses to be a part of the ABA knowing what they stand for, then it is disingenuous to suggest that their policies on inclusion harm the art form itself.
And honestly, if youre struggling to keep your stores open, then that is capitalism at work and people are speaking with their money.
I'm sorry, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? What Pat is saying is that the ABA, which was formed as a mutual support organization for booksellers who were trying to promote free expression by offering a platform for traditionally marginalized authors, has morphed into an organization aligned against some free expression, which undermines their commitment to free expression, and that marginalized members who maintain such a commitment. With her extensive experience in the field, she has found that true commitment to free expression, providing a marketplace for authors of a range of viewpoints which doesn't have a fence at one end is possible, can initiate dialog, and is what the ABA should be supporting.
Independent booksellers' primary competitive advantage is the vision and commitment to provide what the big boxes don't. Serving their community in this way results in a wide spectrum of product selections, which, by the nature of the communities they serve, will differ. While this might make it more difficult to discern if a member is still promoting free expression, creating a "standard" for members to follow which promotes suppression of certain viewpoints erodes the foundation of the organization and threatens its identity as an association of INDEPENDENT booksellers. If the members believe in the rightness of their own viewpoints, they should be confident enough to espouse them in something other than an echo chamber. This has traditionally been the strength of those who espouse inclusiveness.
As an author who has been surrounded by a similar culture, it’s frustrated me how the media only reports on right-wing censorship and insists it’s purely a right-wing issue. It does indeed happen on the right, and the left. It happens on all sides.
I’ve started to see shelves in bookstores more frequently highlighting things like “LGBTQ+ fiction” or “Books by X Race,” and I’m not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, if there is interest for those subjects, people should be directed as to where to find them. On the other hand, it’s always made me feel pigeonholed… If they made shelves for “Female Authors,” would I not be allowed on the ordinary shelves? Are stories featuring black people or gay people or trans people or characters from other countries not just human stories like any other? I’m sure every author and reader feels differently, I just hope authors aren’t being forced to pigeonhole themselves unwillingly.
I always felt pressured to represent diversity in my work, and read books solely because the author was a minority (“read a book by an author of color”, no requirements for quality, was actually one of my school assignments!), and started feeling like if I, as a cishet white author, got published… My spot would just be a waste of space among the bookshelf slots that NEEDED to go to minorities… or so I was taught.
I’m committedly anti-censorship now. I believe that if an author wants to write something with a focus on radical social justice beliefs, they can. If a specific book store wants to focus their content on social justice out of their own volition, they can.
But mandating everyone confirm to a single set of beliefs, and even regulating who’s allowed at author events based on factors irrelevant to the event’s purpose that they cannot control? That’s wrong. I’m sorry to hear things have gotten this bad over there, but glad to see you’re speaking up!
While I agree with everything you said, I wanted to point out that when you call yourself "a cishet white person" you're using their language and reifying it.
Of course we're being forced to pigeonhole ourselves unwillingly. It's no different than the yellow star of David, pink triangle, or other identifiers so favored by the National Socialist camp system (the identity-centric left seems obtusely blind to the parallels). And if you try to represent diversity in your work, you're accused of appropriating something or another or not being able to accurately represent a particular character's point of view based on identify (of course no one says women shouldn't write from a male PoV, or that a writer of color shouldn't write from a white character's PoV).
I made the mistake of participating in NaNoWriMo a couple of years back, and most of the thing was a pathetic exercise in identity politics. No one seemed to care to talk about writing...it was all about the struggle of being a non-binary neurodiverse Furry or whatever label a person cared to adopt for themselves. And if you didn't play the game, you could expect to be ignored, marginalized, or even harassed.
I've commented before that it's sad to me that the arts (which flourished in a permissive society) have become such staunch censors and guardians of what they happen to believe is "right" on any particular day. And adding to the irony...who else remembers the many attempts by left-leaning organizations to ban Huck Finn?
It sucks to see writing focused communities all about censorship when writing should be about having the bravery to present challenging ideas. The diversity conundrum is a mess too - You have to represent those POVs, yet you can’t write those POVs, and it basically creates a trap where writers feel they may as well give up…
NaNo has also disappointed me over the years. They stopped legitimately treating it like a challenge and replaced their attitude with a bunch of “We’re all winners in our own way!” nonsense, which sucks as NaNo is one of the best ways someone can improve as a writer if taken seriously. And I definitely noticed the emails get all diversity-oriented, which also definitely happened at the cost of no longer receiving much practical writing advice. I love the exercise but never use the site anymore.
I try to find writing forums now that still agree to do the challenge together but actually have a writer-friendly culture. It’s hard, since they all wind up sliding off the rails in the end, but I pray that some of the forums I’m in now will have the courage to stay viewpoint neutral or at least accept not everyone shares the same philosophy.
Yeah...it's really tough. I actually did the challenge on my own (by accident really) when I was working on a project and then decided the following year to try the "official" version. BIG mistake I'm still paying for in some ways. Their closed message boards were echo-chambers of nastiness. God forbid you wrote anything other than queer speculative fantasy or the like...
The sad thing is I've found better writing communities once I left the realm of the "declared" writing forums. People who enjoy a particular TV show or fiction genre are often quite good at giving feedback, and they're nowhere near as locked into the dogma that's currently possessing parts of the fiction community. It's also fun to help them learn to get some of their own stories down...so many of the writing forums are also excessively hostile to newcomers or new writers.
No problem having books about topics of interest....but books with contents restricted based on not adhering to a belief system that is just one of many in the US...many of us on the left don't think for instance that you reduce racism by having racism against another group this time around. You do it by the things fair is pushing. Censorship of either view is inappropriate at this high level!
Compelling critique, Nicole Sullivan. This embrace of left-leaning perspectives (and parallel demonization of conservative viewpoints and research) permeates mainstream media as well. I'll visit your bookstore next time I'm in Denver (I live in Buena Vista).
“ABA recognizes that although some behavior may not be intended as harassment and may not be considered harassment by some, comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously and unintentionally express prejudice against a marginalized group or a bias towards groups with the most power, also known as ‘microaggressions,’ can still have a negative impact and may prevent an event from feeling inclusive to all.”
Sentences like this make my heart sink and my head hurt. We should all strive to treat others considerately, but we should also avoid attaching the word “harassment” to anything that might be perceived as offensive.
I suggest the book “The Coddling of the American Mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt be required reading for the ABA board, all college professors, all high school teachers & parents, and all high school & college students (especially Humanities majors).
Thank you for this article. Banning books is not a good idea, it’s sad to see the ABA acting illiberally and hypocritically this way.
Your writing here disregards the fact that these authors the ABA is attempting to highlight have been ignored and discriminated against for years and years. As someone who has worked in bookstores for a long time, I applaud their attempts to diversify the field. I just attended Winter Institute. Not only was the ABFE panel one of the most illuminating I was a part of, but I was also introduced to many great titles during the conference by authors who fall into the affinity groups you are criticizing in your statement. This article is short-sighted and doesn’t capture the whole picture.
The author is not “criticizing affinity groups” in this piece. I think she is pointing out policies that have the appearance of promoting diverse authors, but end up creating a polarizing environment that is not conducive to good art or creativity. Although I support highlighting work from author groups not previously well represented, we miss out on so much when we reduce people to their identities/ immutable characteristics. I would think an author would want a reader to walk away thinking, “that was a great book…”, not, “that was a great (insert affinity group) book.”
The author’s article would make you think at an ABA sponsored event only authors from the designated affinity groups would be represented when that really isn’t true. These are efforts to make more voices heard not less. No one is saying you shouldn’t walk away going, “that was a great book”, but there is nothing wrong with making an effort to diversify your reading. Especially when so many important BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ authors are being so heavily censored.
The challenge, as always, is you're often selecting people based on a declared identity and not always on merit or ability. Unless the program is extended in some way, people will be excluded or left out. And the declared identity filter is the easiest way to accomplish this.
Personally I select what I read based on subject or genre. I don't care a bit what label the author happens to hang on themselves. In fact I often avoid reading the author blurb entirely until I'm done with the book. That also means I'm not likely to see authors who are shelved based on whatever colored triangle they happen to have slapped on themselves.
“Especially when so many important BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ authors are being so heavily censored.”
I agree, there is nothing wrong with making an effort to diversify your reading, but I was confused by your last sentence. I would concede those authors may be underrepresented, but how are they being censored?
Books like Gender Queer and All Boys Aren’t Blue being banned. As well as classic authors like Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, and Ralph Ellison being banned. Not sure how you can overlook this trend.
I don’t agree with banning books. I don’t think it’s a healthy way to object to ideas. That said, I don’t see any large movement successfully banning anything you mentioned in the 2020’s. Bans and Challenges are two different things. I don’t know a single current high school kid who hasn’t heard of or read Toni Morrison. The two books you mention are intended for high school aged teens & older (depending which source you read). Parents of middle school kids who object /question material that is not age appropriate being in a middle school library is not censorship. The Public libraries are a free resource for any kid/teen where they can find the books/ authors you mention, save for a few exceptions. Most high schools no longer have libraries; they have become “media centers” with few actual books available (which is sad, but a different topic), so though I disagree with bans for that age group, any in effect in public high-schools do not have much impact. If we hope to change hearts & minds so that people don’t reflexively reach for book banning when they become frightened, the ABA & ACLU would do well to refrain from the behavior they claim to be against.
you could have just said "I think indie bookstores should be servants of capitalism and not their communities" and got the same attention, but good job reaching that word count ♥️
princess nicole strikes again! all this from a woman who has a long history of harassing her own employees even after they quit and endangering their lives both at and outside of work 😂 you can just say you hate trans people and other minorities, you are clearly aware that's your right, so why are you afraid to just outright say it? play to your red audience as much as you can!
I find this incredibly appalling. The very stores that are selling banned book stickers and tshirts are engaging in this. Shameful, hypocritical behavior! I am a major supporter of local independent bookstores, an avid lifelong reader and leader of a book club that is 30 years old. We were all trying to support them over Amazon and B&N and this is what we get in return for our loyalty...now I'm not sure where to shop for my books any more, but it's clear that I won't be able to find some more "controversial" books in the indies - unless I can make it to Denver!
I feel for Nicole, who is fighting an uphill battle to keep her shop open but also provide a wide selection of books to her customers. Does the ABA think we are all too dumb to be critical readers?
You can find it appalling all you want. But, the difference is, folks refusing to carry books is different than people attempting to use the law to prevent books from being carried. It's not hypocritical at all.
Actually it is, because many of the people refusing to carry books are also the same people who actively protest those using the law to prevent books from being carried. The hypocrisy lies in them seeking the protection of the First Amendment while attempting to deny others the same protections. This usually isn't just refusing to carry books...it's often linked with attempts to push those books out of other stores and using peer pressure to achieve what they want. I'd be curious to know how many of these people don't support the right of other businesses to refuse to provide services they don't agree with (a bakery in I believe it was Colorado comes to mind).
Again though, are these people using thr law to ban books? No. They aren't. People are using their first amendment to speak out about books they believe are problematic. At the end of the day, the bookstore can choose to carry whatever they want regardless of social pressures, and at the end of the day, people will shop where they choose. No one is legally denying these bookstores their first amendment to carry what they choose. You dont get to alienate a group of people as a business and then whine when those people and their allies dont shop with you.
Back in the 90's I worked customer service at PGW. I spoke with bookstores all over the country, and later, as my job advanced, more exclusively with publishers. I enjoyed the same understanding of the culture as you record here. Independent bookstores were rocks of individualism and freedom then. So independent that they came off as assholes fwiw. Maybe they'd give more or less shelf space to accommodate the local market... but push concepts? Remove books from the shelf for ideology? Not. On. Your Life.
So here's what I consider obvious. The Wokeism inculcated in academia hit hardest and fastest in the book industry. Add on plenty of "inspiration" from globalist ICs and presto, the ABA is an easy conscript into the Woke army.
I likely used words here that trigger reactions. I pray all of us can see past those inane responses.
Isn’t amazing that many of the progressives who complain about (and want to censor) so called misinformation on social media sites like X and Facebook also assert the ridiculous notion that a man can become a woman. Is any statement more a prime example of misinformation than that piece of nonsense?
So should I ask if my small local rural WI bookstore is an ABA member? If so, tell them I can't buy from them anymore because of the ABA's policy stance. This feels wrong, but I know the power of the purse is strong.
Thank you. I wonder, will the next 10 years be defined by a mass reset, where institutions and organizations that embraced DEI are left to wither on the vine while new liberal organizations are created to take their place?
Thank you. Once upon a time it was a point of honor for people who worked in bookstores and libraries to defend books and authors with unpopular views.
I was a consultant to the library world for 40+ years and a contributing editor, reviewer, and columnist for The Bloomsbury Review (TBR) for about 14 years. TBR was an independent book magazine focusing on small, regional, and academic presses in the US and Canada. Also, back in the day, I helped found and manage an independent bookstore in the Midwest before I moved to Denver in 1975. We were proud that we sold books that other bookstores would not have on their shelves, including bilingual children's books, authors representing the gay and lesbian communities at the time as well as self-published books with right- and left-leaning political slants.
I visited libraries and bookstores throughout the United States and worked with state and national professional library and book-related associations. Increasingly, I heard and saw good people, who wanted a better world, advocate for removing books considered unworthy from shelves and to censor their authors. I found it hard to relate to their concerns. I don't think silencing ideas improves the world.
I admit it can be a fuzzy line deciding to not acquire a book because of subjective issues such as "quality" or because a book does not fit the current collection development guidelines versus not agreeing with an author's POV. And I have witnessed my share of clashes between library users and staff over favorite (meaning old) books removed from the shelves to make room for the new. However what you describe, in my opinion, is different and not just about the practicalities of limited shelf space and the changing interests of readers.
Again, thank you.
Sooo....basically you're saying that an organization that can freely decide what it wants to adhere to is somehow lowering the standard by choosing to be inclusive? Ok Elon Musk. You sound exactly how he did when stating that the standards for being a pilot were lowered because DEI was something they believed in. Standards for art were not lowered because more people are being considered.
Just be honest and say you dont think everyone deserves a fair shot because people dont want to be called out for their terrible takes; takes that harm actual, human people. If someone chooses to be a part of the ABA knowing what they stand for, then it is disingenuous to suggest that their policies on inclusion harm the art form itself.
And honestly, if youre struggling to keep your stores open, then that is capitalism at work and people are speaking with their money.
I'm sorry, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? What Pat is saying is that the ABA, which was formed as a mutual support organization for booksellers who were trying to promote free expression by offering a platform for traditionally marginalized authors, has morphed into an organization aligned against some free expression, which undermines their commitment to free expression, and that marginalized members who maintain such a commitment. With her extensive experience in the field, she has found that true commitment to free expression, providing a marketplace for authors of a range of viewpoints which doesn't have a fence at one end is possible, can initiate dialog, and is what the ABA should be supporting.
Independent booksellers' primary competitive advantage is the vision and commitment to provide what the big boxes don't. Serving their community in this way results in a wide spectrum of product selections, which, by the nature of the communities they serve, will differ. While this might make it more difficult to discern if a member is still promoting free expression, creating a "standard" for members to follow which promotes suppression of certain viewpoints erodes the foundation of the organization and threatens its identity as an association of INDEPENDENT booksellers. If the members believe in the rightness of their own viewpoints, they should be confident enough to espouse them in something other than an echo chamber. This has traditionally been the strength of those who espouse inclusiveness.
You need a new organization. You have a list of booksellers in the ABA, many might be interested in a non ideological organization?
It is too bad this one is ruined!
Or a new independent book sellers organization that is devoted to free speech
Thank you, so much, for shedding light on this!
As an author who has been surrounded by a similar culture, it’s frustrated me how the media only reports on right-wing censorship and insists it’s purely a right-wing issue. It does indeed happen on the right, and the left. It happens on all sides.
I’ve started to see shelves in bookstores more frequently highlighting things like “LGBTQ+ fiction” or “Books by X Race,” and I’m not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, if there is interest for those subjects, people should be directed as to where to find them. On the other hand, it’s always made me feel pigeonholed… If they made shelves for “Female Authors,” would I not be allowed on the ordinary shelves? Are stories featuring black people or gay people or trans people or characters from other countries not just human stories like any other? I’m sure every author and reader feels differently, I just hope authors aren’t being forced to pigeonhole themselves unwillingly.
I always felt pressured to represent diversity in my work, and read books solely because the author was a minority (“read a book by an author of color”, no requirements for quality, was actually one of my school assignments!), and started feeling like if I, as a cishet white author, got published… My spot would just be a waste of space among the bookshelf slots that NEEDED to go to minorities… or so I was taught.
I’m committedly anti-censorship now. I believe that if an author wants to write something with a focus on radical social justice beliefs, they can. If a specific book store wants to focus their content on social justice out of their own volition, they can.
But mandating everyone confirm to a single set of beliefs, and even regulating who’s allowed at author events based on factors irrelevant to the event’s purpose that they cannot control? That’s wrong. I’m sorry to hear things have gotten this bad over there, but glad to see you’re speaking up!
While I agree with everything you said, I wanted to point out that when you call yourself "a cishet white person" you're using their language and reifying it.
Of course we're being forced to pigeonhole ourselves unwillingly. It's no different than the yellow star of David, pink triangle, or other identifiers so favored by the National Socialist camp system (the identity-centric left seems obtusely blind to the parallels). And if you try to represent diversity in your work, you're accused of appropriating something or another or not being able to accurately represent a particular character's point of view based on identify (of course no one says women shouldn't write from a male PoV, or that a writer of color shouldn't write from a white character's PoV).
I made the mistake of participating in NaNoWriMo a couple of years back, and most of the thing was a pathetic exercise in identity politics. No one seemed to care to talk about writing...it was all about the struggle of being a non-binary neurodiverse Furry or whatever label a person cared to adopt for themselves. And if you didn't play the game, you could expect to be ignored, marginalized, or even harassed.
I've commented before that it's sad to me that the arts (which flourished in a permissive society) have become such staunch censors and guardians of what they happen to believe is "right" on any particular day. And adding to the irony...who else remembers the many attempts by left-leaning organizations to ban Huck Finn?
Dang, that’s awful!
It sucks to see writing focused communities all about censorship when writing should be about having the bravery to present challenging ideas. The diversity conundrum is a mess too - You have to represent those POVs, yet you can’t write those POVs, and it basically creates a trap where writers feel they may as well give up…
NaNo has also disappointed me over the years. They stopped legitimately treating it like a challenge and replaced their attitude with a bunch of “We’re all winners in our own way!” nonsense, which sucks as NaNo is one of the best ways someone can improve as a writer if taken seriously. And I definitely noticed the emails get all diversity-oriented, which also definitely happened at the cost of no longer receiving much practical writing advice. I love the exercise but never use the site anymore.
I try to find writing forums now that still agree to do the challenge together but actually have a writer-friendly culture. It’s hard, since they all wind up sliding off the rails in the end, but I pray that some of the forums I’m in now will have the courage to stay viewpoint neutral or at least accept not everyone shares the same philosophy.
Yeah...it's really tough. I actually did the challenge on my own (by accident really) when I was working on a project and then decided the following year to try the "official" version. BIG mistake I'm still paying for in some ways. Their closed message boards were echo-chambers of nastiness. God forbid you wrote anything other than queer speculative fantasy or the like...
The sad thing is I've found better writing communities once I left the realm of the "declared" writing forums. People who enjoy a particular TV show or fiction genre are often quite good at giving feedback, and they're nowhere near as locked into the dogma that's currently possessing parts of the fiction community. It's also fun to help them learn to get some of their own stories down...so many of the writing forums are also excessively hostile to newcomers or new writers.
No problem having books about topics of interest....but books with contents restricted based on not adhering to a belief system that is just one of many in the US...many of us on the left don't think for instance that you reduce racism by having racism against another group this time around. You do it by the things fair is pushing. Censorship of either view is inappropriate at this high level!
Well said!
I appreciate this thoughtful comment from an author.
Yet another proof of James Lindsay’s contention that any organization that lets in the woke is dooming itself.
Compelling critique, Nicole Sullivan. This embrace of left-leaning perspectives (and parallel demonization of conservative viewpoints and research) permeates mainstream media as well. I'll visit your bookstore next time I'm in Denver (I live in Buena Vista).
“ABA recognizes that although some behavior may not be intended as harassment and may not be considered harassment by some, comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously and unintentionally express prejudice against a marginalized group or a bias towards groups with the most power, also known as ‘microaggressions,’ can still have a negative impact and may prevent an event from feeling inclusive to all.”
Sentences like this make my heart sink and my head hurt. We should all strive to treat others considerately, but we should also avoid attaching the word “harassment” to anything that might be perceived as offensive.
I suggest the book “The Coddling of the American Mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure” by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt be required reading for the ABA board, all college professors, all high school teachers & parents, and all high school & college students (especially Humanities majors).
Thank you for this article. Banning books is not a good idea, it’s sad to see the ABA acting illiberally and hypocritically this way.
Your writing here disregards the fact that these authors the ABA is attempting to highlight have been ignored and discriminated against for years and years. As someone who has worked in bookstores for a long time, I applaud their attempts to diversify the field. I just attended Winter Institute. Not only was the ABFE panel one of the most illuminating I was a part of, but I was also introduced to many great titles during the conference by authors who fall into the affinity groups you are criticizing in your statement. This article is short-sighted and doesn’t capture the whole picture.
The author is not “criticizing affinity groups” in this piece. I think she is pointing out policies that have the appearance of promoting diverse authors, but end up creating a polarizing environment that is not conducive to good art or creativity. Although I support highlighting work from author groups not previously well represented, we miss out on so much when we reduce people to their identities/ immutable characteristics. I would think an author would want a reader to walk away thinking, “that was a great book…”, not, “that was a great (insert affinity group) book.”
The author’s article would make you think at an ABA sponsored event only authors from the designated affinity groups would be represented when that really isn’t true. These are efforts to make more voices heard not less. No one is saying you shouldn’t walk away going, “that was a great book”, but there is nothing wrong with making an effort to diversify your reading. Especially when so many important BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ authors are being so heavily censored.
The challenge, as always, is you're often selecting people based on a declared identity and not always on merit or ability. Unless the program is extended in some way, people will be excluded or left out. And the declared identity filter is the easiest way to accomplish this.
Personally I select what I read based on subject or genre. I don't care a bit what label the author happens to hang on themselves. In fact I often avoid reading the author blurb entirely until I'm done with the book. That also means I'm not likely to see authors who are shelved based on whatever colored triangle they happen to have slapped on themselves.
“Especially when so many important BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ authors are being so heavily censored.”
I agree, there is nothing wrong with making an effort to diversify your reading, but I was confused by your last sentence. I would concede those authors may be underrepresented, but how are they being censored?
Books like Gender Queer and All Boys Aren’t Blue being banned. As well as classic authors like Toni Morrison, James Baldwin, and Ralph Ellison being banned. Not sure how you can overlook this trend.
I don’t agree with banning books. I don’t think it’s a healthy way to object to ideas. That said, I don’t see any large movement successfully banning anything you mentioned in the 2020’s. Bans and Challenges are two different things. I don’t know a single current high school kid who hasn’t heard of or read Toni Morrison. The two books you mention are intended for high school aged teens & older (depending which source you read). Parents of middle school kids who object /question material that is not age appropriate being in a middle school library is not censorship. The Public libraries are a free resource for any kid/teen where they can find the books/ authors you mention, save for a few exceptions. Most high schools no longer have libraries; they have become “media centers” with few actual books available (which is sad, but a different topic), so though I disagree with bans for that age group, any in effect in public high-schools do not have much impact. If we hope to change hearts & minds so that people don’t reflexively reach for book banning when they become frightened, the ABA & ACLU would do well to refrain from the behavior they claim to be against.
you could have just said "I think indie bookstores should be servants of capitalism and not their communities" and got the same attention, but good job reaching that word count ♥️
princess nicole strikes again! all this from a woman who has a long history of harassing her own employees even after they quit and endangering their lives both at and outside of work 😂 you can just say you hate trans people and other minorities, you are clearly aware that's your right, so why are you afraid to just outright say it? play to your red audience as much as you can!
I find this incredibly appalling. The very stores that are selling banned book stickers and tshirts are engaging in this. Shameful, hypocritical behavior! I am a major supporter of local independent bookstores, an avid lifelong reader and leader of a book club that is 30 years old. We were all trying to support them over Amazon and B&N and this is what we get in return for our loyalty...now I'm not sure where to shop for my books any more, but it's clear that I won't be able to find some more "controversial" books in the indies - unless I can make it to Denver!
I feel for Nicole, who is fighting an uphill battle to keep her shop open but also provide a wide selection of books to her customers. Does the ABA think we are all too dumb to be critical readers?
You can find it appalling all you want. But, the difference is, folks refusing to carry books is different than people attempting to use the law to prevent books from being carried. It's not hypocritical at all.
Actually it is, because many of the people refusing to carry books are also the same people who actively protest those using the law to prevent books from being carried. The hypocrisy lies in them seeking the protection of the First Amendment while attempting to deny others the same protections. This usually isn't just refusing to carry books...it's often linked with attempts to push those books out of other stores and using peer pressure to achieve what they want. I'd be curious to know how many of these people don't support the right of other businesses to refuse to provide services they don't agree with (a bakery in I believe it was Colorado comes to mind).
Again though, are these people using thr law to ban books? No. They aren't. People are using their first amendment to speak out about books they believe are problematic. At the end of the day, the bookstore can choose to carry whatever they want regardless of social pressures, and at the end of the day, people will shop where they choose. No one is legally denying these bookstores their first amendment to carry what they choose. You dont get to alienate a group of people as a business and then whine when those people and their allies dont shop with you.
Back in the 90's I worked customer service at PGW. I spoke with bookstores all over the country, and later, as my job advanced, more exclusively with publishers. I enjoyed the same understanding of the culture as you record here. Independent bookstores were rocks of individualism and freedom then. So independent that they came off as assholes fwiw. Maybe they'd give more or less shelf space to accommodate the local market... but push concepts? Remove books from the shelf for ideology? Not. On. Your Life.
So here's what I consider obvious. The Wokeism inculcated in academia hit hardest and fastest in the book industry. Add on plenty of "inspiration" from globalist ICs and presto, the ABA is an easy conscript into the Woke army.
I likely used words here that trigger reactions. I pray all of us can see past those inane responses.
Fahrenheit 451 is closer than you think.
You are parroting absurd and harmful rhetoric which closely mirrors Trump’s recent attacks on DEI.
Isn’t amazing that many of the progressives who complain about (and want to censor) so called misinformation on social media sites like X and Facebook also assert the ridiculous notion that a man can become a woman. Is any statement more a prime example of misinformation than that piece of nonsense?
So should I ask if my small local rural WI bookstore is an ABA member? If so, tell them I can't buy from them anymore because of the ABA's policy stance. This feels wrong, but I know the power of the purse is strong.
Thank you. I wonder, will the next 10 years be defined by a mass reset, where institutions and organizations that embraced DEI are left to wither on the vine while new liberal organizations are created to take their place?