New filk: Banned Books

[Arthur T.]

Lee, if you want this for Xeno, might I suggest a September
issue?

Title: Banned Books
ttto: Weapon Shops of Isher by Leslie Fish

The end of September, in ev'ry library,
You'll see a display that creates awe for me.
Though it may seem bleak,
I'm proud it's banned book week.
The right to read books is the right to think free.

Huck Finn to Potter, there's always some zealots
Who want to keep you from the harms that they see.
They think they're so moral,
But I have a quarrel:
The words that they hide from do not frighten me.

Sometimes it's "bad" words and sometimes ideas;
The prudes sometimes want to see all sex scenes banned.
Or maybe it's slavery,
Or faiths too unsavory.
Expanding one's mind, we should all see as grand.

Here is a book that says gender is fluid.
There is a book that says bigotry's fine.
What you find disgusting,
May need readjusting.
Go outside your bound'ries to judge what's malign.

Books, music, and movies, they push people's buttons,
Especially ones that don't treat you like dolts.
But don't keep them from us.
Or we will make some fuss.
Your hiding ideas is what leads to revolts.

They claim that some books are too powerful for us,
But if I can't read them how can I agree?
For things that they censor,
We'll find a dispenser.
The right to decide is the right to be free.


My lyrics copyright 2018 by Arthur Tansky. License granted for
non-commercial, non-political archiving and performance as long as:
1. copyright notice is maintained, and
2. no money changes hands.

[Gary McGath]

Post by Arthur T.
Title: Banned Books
ttto: Weapon Shops of Isher by Leslie Fish
The end of September, in ev'ry library,
You'll see a display that creates awe for me.
Though it may seem bleak,
I'm proud it's banned book week.
The right to read books is the right to think free.

Banned Books Week always seems like "bland books week" to me. It focuses
on mainstream books that only a few people would object to, and often on
bans in the distant past. This is partly because legal bans on books are
rarely possible in the US today.

But the mere attempt to ban seems to qualify a book for mention, so
perhaps "Fire and Fury" will be on the next BBW list.

[Arthur T.]

Post by Gary McGath
Banned Books Week always seems like "bland books week" to me. It focuses
on mainstream books that only a few people would object to, and often on
bans in the distant past. This is partly because legal bans on books are
rarely possible in the US today.
But the mere attempt to ban seems to qualify a book for mention, so
perhaps "Fire and Fury" will be on the next BBW list.

I think you may be reacting like those who say, "Why was there
such hype about Y2K? Nothing happened."

You're right (I hope) that today books are challenged, but not
actually banned. But it wasn't very long ago that bans were common.
Banned Book Week was one of the campaigns to bring this to light and,
through publicity, help bookstores, libraries, and schools fight the
challenges.

The possible overhyping of BBW also reminds me of this
Doonesbury comic:
http://assets.amuniversal.com/dc5a23b070000135e7bc005056a9545d

[Gary McGath]

Post by Arthur T.
You're right (I hope) that today books are challenged, but not
actually banned. But it wasn't very long ago that bans were common.
Banned Book Week was one of the campaigns to bring this to light and,
through publicity, help bookstores, libraries, and schools fight the
challenges.
The possible overhyping of BBW also reminds me of this
http://assets.amuniversal.com/dc5a23b070000135e7bc005056a9545d

There are still highly controversial books that people try to ban, like
_Mein Kampf_ and _The Satanic Verses_, and BBW seems to shy away from
them. The idea of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it" rarely gets more than lip service, but
even the lip service seems to be fading these days.

I like that comic.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:19:33 -0500, Gary McGath

Post by Gary McGath

Post by Arthur T.
You're right (I hope) that today books are challenged, but not
actually banned. But it wasn't very long ago that bans were common.
Banned Book Week was one of the campaigns to bring this to light and,
through publicity, help bookstores, libraries, and schools fight the
challenges.
The possible overhyping of BBW also reminds me of this
http://assets.amuniversal.com/dc5a23b070000135e7bc005056a9545d

There are still highly controversial books that people try to ban, like
_Mein Kampf_ and _The Satanic Verses_, and BBW seems to shy away from
them. The idea of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it" rarely gets more than lip service, but
even the lip service seems to be fading these days.
I like that comic.

I seem to recall that Satanic Verses was included in BBW for several
years, at the height of the fatwa on Rushdie.

[Arthur T.]

Post by Gary McGath

Post by Arthur T.
You're right (I hope) that today books are challenged, but not
actually banned. But it wasn't very long ago that bans were common.
Banned Book Week was one of the campaigns to bring this to light and,
through publicity, help bookstores, libraries, and schools fight the
challenges.
The possible overhyping of BBW also reminds me of this
http://assets.amuniversal.com/dc5a23b070000135e7bc005056a9545d

There are still highly controversial books that people try to ban, like
_Mein Kampf_ and _The Satanic Verses_, and BBW seems to shy away from
them. The idea of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it" rarely gets more than lip service, but
even the lip service seems to be fading these days.

I haven't actually investigated BBW, so what follows are
unfounded opinions.

BBW focuses on the most often challenged books. If libraries
are not adding, and schools are not assigning, Mein Kampf or The
Satanic Verses, they won't show up (unless, perhaps you dig).

It may be that the need for BBW is waning. It would be good if
the need went away entirely. But I'm afraid it's one of those odd
things: While it's there it doesn't do much, but if it weren't there
things would deteriorate. It's a once-a-year reminder that some
people want to decide what some other people can't read.

Given that, it makes sense to highlight the softball books like
Harry Potter. It's easy to get people to agree that challenging
those is nuts. That puts people in the "right" mood when they're
considering challenges to less obvious books like Mein Kampf.

Even causes I agree with might use rhetorical devices I'm less
sure I'm for. It's the opposite of what I said elsewhere: "Even bad
men may fight for a good cause."

Post by Gary McGath
I like that comic.

When I first saw it, it was lacking the throw-away 1st two
panels, and I liked it even more. Though it's fiction, it's
believable, and thus a sign that at least some progress has been
made.

[Gary McGath]

Post by Arthur T.
I haven't actually investigated BBW, so what follows are
unfounded opinions.
BBW focuses on the most often challenged books. If libraries
are not adding, and schools are not assigning, Mein Kampf or The
Satanic Verses, they won't show up (unless, perhaps you dig).
It may be that the need for BBW is waning. It would be good if
the need went away entirely. But I'm afraid it's one of those odd
things: While it's there it doesn't do much, but if it weren't there
things would deteriorate. It's a once-a-year reminder that some
people want to decide what some other people can't read.
Given that, it makes sense to highlight the softball books like
Harry Potter. It's easy to get people to agree that challenging
those is nuts. That puts people in the "right" mood when they're
considering challenges to less obvious books like Mein Kampf.

The challenges are very often for school libraries at the lower grade
levels. Reasonable people can disagree over whether a book is suitable
for a library for fourth-graders, but it's odd and unnecessarily
divisive when the BBW people characterize that as "banning." I think,
for instance, that it would be a poor idea for an elementary school
library to carry Mira Grant's _Newsflesh_ trilogy.

If I were running BBW, I'd focus on current book-banning in other
countries. There's still lots of that. Wikipedia has a list of banned
books, including quite a few that are currently banned or recently were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Gary McGath
The challenges are very often for school libraries at the lower
grade levels. Reasonable people can disagree over whether a
book is suitable for a library for fourth-graders, but it's odd
and unnecessarily divisive when the BBW people characterize
that as "banning."

Agreed. I wrote off the BBW campaign when I looked at the
"bans" they were waxing wroth about, and found that most
of them (the ones that weren't from the days of "Banned
in Boston, at least) were exactly this -- grammar school
libraries declining to stock books arguably inappropriate
for grammar school students does not constitute a "ban".

It's an important issue that deserves attention, but their
approach makes their display of books not entirely useful.

[Eyal Mozes]

I don't think there's justification for complacency about the danger of having books banned. The issue is very much alive.

In the Citizens United case, the government argued that the McCain/Feingold law does give it the authority not only to ban production of movies - as the specific case was about - but also to ban publication of books. So if the case had been decided differently - which was very much a possibility, since the decision was 5-4 - we would have then seen books banned in the US.

The movement to overturn the Citizens United decision is by no means dead; there are still many people calling for it to be overturned, and in the last election we saw one major presidential candidate declare that a "litmus test" for appointment t the Supreme Court would be a willingness to overturn it. There was a time when you could at least rely on people in fandom to put support for free speech as a higher priority than partisan politics, but that time is sadly over; many people in fandom have attacked the Citizens United decision and still do.

So the danger of having books banned in the US is still very real. My criticism of Banned Books Week - or Bland Books Week, Gary's name for it which I think is very suitable - is that it does nothing productive against the actual dangers. Activities consist of hypocritically and piously defending mainstream books that no one objects to; denouncing every parent who's ever innocuously expressed an opinion about the suitability of some book in their children's school library; while saying nothing either about real banning of books in other countries or about the real dangers of such bans coming to the US.

[Tim Merrigan]

Post by Eyal Mozes
I don't think there's justification for complacency about the danger of having books banned. The issue is very much alive.
In the Citizens United case, the government argued that the McCain/Feingold law does give it the authority not only to ban production of movies - as the specific case was about - but also to ban publication of books. So if the case had been decided differently - which was very much a possibility, since the decision was 5-4 - we would have then seen books banned in the US.
The movement to overturn the Citizens United decision is by no means dead; there are still many people calling for it to be overturned, and in the last election we saw one major presidential candidate declare that a "litmus test" for appointment t the Supreme Court would be a willingness to overturn it. There was a time when you could at least rely on people in fandom to put support for free speech as a higher priority than partisan politics, but that time is sadly over; many people in fandom have attacked the Citizens United decision and still do.
So the danger of having books banned in the US is still very real. My criticism of Banned Books Week - or Bland Books Week, Gary's name for it which I think is very suitable - is that it does nothing productive against the actual dangers. Activities consist of hypocritically and piously defending mainstream books that no one objects to; denouncing every parent who's ever innocuously expressed an opinion about the suitability of some book in their children's school library; while saying nothing either about real banning of books in other countries or about the real dangers of such bans coming to the US.

This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

[Arthur T.]

Post by Tim Merrigan
This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

The basis of the suit was a movie. I don't remember the details
well enough to go any further than that. And, I think we've gone far
enough off topic that perhaps this subthread should move to Overflow.

[Lee Gold XP]

Post by Arthur T.

Post by Tim Merrigan
This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

The basis of the suit was a movie. I don't remember the details
well enough to go any further than that. And, I think we've gone far
enough off topic that perhaps this subthread should move to Overflow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
"In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United
sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the
film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic
primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President."

--Lee

[Gary McGath]

Post by Arthur T.

Post by Tim Merrigan
This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

The basis of the suit was a movie. I don't remember the details
well enough to go any further than that. And, I think we've gone far
enough off topic that perhaps this subthread should move to Overflow.

At least we've got a discussion going on this newsgroup. I don't
subscribe to the overflow list (and wasn't aware it was still alive), so
I'd miss out on any further discussion there.

If you think this is off-topic, you should look at rasff sometime. :)

[Rich Brown]

Post by Gary McGath
At least we've got a discussion going on this newsgroup. I don't
subscribe to the overflow list (and wasn't aware it was still alive), so
I'd miss out on any further discussion there.

I tried to send a message to overflow a couple months ago and saw nothing
back - I think that list is down.

[Kay Shapero]

In article <p3d5kn$e81$***@dont-email.me>, ***@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com
says...

Post by Gary McGath

Post by Arthur T.

Post by Tim Merrigan
This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

The basis of the suit was a movie. I don't remember the details
well enough to go any further than that. And, I think we've gone far
enough off topic that perhaps this subthread should move to Overflow.

At least we've got a discussion going on this newsgroup. I don't
subscribe to the overflow list (and wasn't aware it was still alive), so
I'd miss out on any further discussion there.

a) it does still exist, though there's not been anything on it for quite
awhile. As moderator of the list I've bounced a few attempts at spam,
but that's about it.

b) I agree - it's so nice to see a discussion of any sort in here - I
move we keep it for now.

[Scott Dorsey]

Surely someone can adapt Bruce Springsteen's tune to lyrics of
"Banned In the USA."
--scott

[Jeff Urs]

Ditto, but

Never fail to rhyme or scan, when text you’re here deploying;
Polemics, to the singing fan, as prose will be annoying.
Unless your argument’s in verse, instead of praise you’ll get their curse.
No, never fail to rhyme or scan.

So educate or eviscerate your fellow man,
But never fail to rhyme or scan.

[Gary McGath]

Post by Tim Merrigan
This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

I thought everyone knew that. The case was specifically a lawsuit by
Hillary Clinton to block the release of a movie critical of her (called
"Hillary: The Movie").

However, I wasn't aware that books had come into question as well.

The decision didn't lift limits on campaign contributions. Why do you
think it did?

[Eyal Mozes]

Post by Gary McGath
However, I wasn't aware that books had come into question as well.

See https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf and https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205[Reargued].pdf for transcripts of the two rounds of oral argument in the case.

See also https://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/will-elena-kagan-allow-books for a good summary of specifically the discussion of banning books at the oral arguments.

The fact that Elena Kagan has since been appointed to the Supreme Court makes the danger of books being banned all the more real; and the antics of Banned Books Week all the more irrelevant to the real issue.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 09:36:00 -0500, Gary McGath

Post by Gary McGath

Post by Tim Merrigan
This is the first I've heard that Citizens United had anything to do
with books or movies. What people wanting to overturn it object to is
that it allows unlimited, undisclosed contributions to political
campaigns.

I thought everyone knew that. The case was specifically a lawsuit by
Hillary Clinton to block the release of a movie critical of her (called
"Hillary: The Movie").
However, I wasn't aware that books had come into question as well.
The decision didn't lift limits on campaign contributions. Why do you
think it did?

It allowed for super PACs, with undisclosed donors or amounts donated,
and third party "issue" ads as long as they don't specifically say
"vote for X". I, and many others, see those as indirect campaign
contributions.

[Gary McGath]

Post by Tim Merrigan

Post by Gary McGath
The decision didn't lift limits on campaign contributions. Why do you
think it did?

It allowed for super PACs, with undisclosed donors or amounts donated,
and third party "issue" ads as long as they don't specifically say
"vote for X". I, and many others, see those as indirect campaign
contributions.

Once you call speech "campaign contributions" and allow the government
to regulate them, you've tossed free speech out the window.

This issue goes a long way back. The FEC, at Ted Kennedy's urging,
investigated the Reader's Digest for running an article called
"Chappiquiddick: The Still Unanswered Questions."

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/16/us/2-publishers-accuse-us-election-agency-of-rights-violations.html

A spokesperson for the FEC claimed: " The commission doesn't have any
intent to impinge on First Amendment rights, but there are issues that
arise that involve the parent corporations of a news organization, such
as a parent corporation possibly making contributions to influence an
election."

There's no "except when it might influence an election" exception to the
First Amendment. Criticism or support of elected officials, candidates,
and governmental actions is at the heart of free speech.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 06:43:27 -0500, Gary McGath

Post by Gary McGath

Post by Tim Merrigan

Post by Gary McGath
The decision didn't lift limits on campaign contributions. Why do you
think it did?

It allowed for super PACs, with undisclosed donors or amounts donated,
and third party "issue" ads as long as they don't specifically say
"vote for X". I, and many others, see those as indirect campaign
contributions.

Once you call speech "campaign contributions" and allow the government
to regulate them, you've tossed free speech out the window.
This issue goes a long way back. The FEC, at Ted Kennedy's urging,
investigated the Reader's Digest for running an article called
"Chappiquiddick: The Still Unanswered Questions."
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/16/us/2-publishers-accuse-us-election-agency-of-rights-violations.html
A spokesperson for the FEC claimed: " The commission doesn't have any
intent to impinge on First Amendment rights, but there are issues that
arise that involve the parent corporations of a news organization, such
as a parent corporation possibly making contributions to influence an
election."
There's no "except when it might influence an election" exception to the
First Amendment. Criticism or support of elected officials, candidates,
and governmental actions is at the heart of free speech.

On the other hand, once you call money speech, than only people with
money have free speech.

I can rant and rave all I want, but the only people who will see it
are here, because I can't afford a nationwide saturation ad campaign.

It comes down to "The rich man and the poor man have exactly the same
right to sleep under the bridge."

[Paul Rubin]

Post by Gary McGath
Once you call speech "campaign contributions" and allow the government
to regulate them, you've tossed free speech out the window.

The issue is less "speech=campaign contributions" than "money=speech",
as I understood it. Once you can spend unlimited amounts of money
anonymously supporting a campaign and calling it "free speech", you've
tossed democracy out the window. Plus I think "corporations=people"
also figured into that case.

[Gary McGath]

Post by Paul Rubin

Post by Gary McGath
Once you call speech "campaign contributions" and allow the government
to regulate them, you've tossed free speech out the window.

The issue is less "speech=campaign contributions" than "money=speech",
as I understood it. Once you can spend unlimited amounts of money
anonymously supporting a campaign and calling it "free speech", you've
tossed democracy out the window. Plus I think "corporations=people"
also figured into that case.

Saying that you have the right to free speech but not to spend money on
it makes it meaningless.

I'm aware of the "corporations are not people" slogan. It rests on an
ambiguity. An organization is not a person, but it's made up of people.
The idea behind the opposition to Citizens United is that the right to
free speech belongs only to individuals acting in isolation.

It seems odd that progressives uphold this view, since it amounts to
saying that people can't organize to express their views. If
corporations don't have free speech rights, then most news media don't.
Most large advocacy groups don't. (Almost all the biggest ones are
nonprofit corporations of one type or another.) The big winners would be
very rich individuals, who could pour all their money into personal
campaigns, while the rest of us would be fragmented, forbidden to act as
organizations except as the government chooses to permit.

A society that doesn't ban books, but just bans spending money on them
and says "money != books," is a society that bans books.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Gary McGath
Saying that you have the right to free speech but not to spend money on
it makes it meaningless.
I'm aware of the "corporations are not people" slogan. It rests on an
ambiguity. An organization is not a person, but it's made up of people.
The idea behind the opposition to Citizens United is that the right to
free speech belongs only to individuals acting in isolation.
It seems odd that progressives uphold this view, since it amounts to
saying that people can't organize to express their views. If
corporations don't have free speech rights, then most news media don't.

Also under that view, labor unions don't have free speech rights,
either.

A few years ago (during the Clinton administration, IIRC) there
were some noises from regulators in Washington DC about how
political blogs might be considered "contributions in kind".
"We'll put a value on the time you're spending on the blog, call
that a contribution, and if you go over the limit..." It didn't
go far, thankfully.

It pretty much boils down to "Free speech for me, but not for thee".

[Jeff Urs]

A long, long time ago –
I can still remember how
Ol’ Michael Moore had Bush fans riled.
He aired a film just in advance
Of when to vote there’d be a chance;
The movie seemed to some an ad gone wild.

So to the courts those folk delivered
Claims the film on ice should shiver;
Past a legal doorstep
They said it took one more step.

“You’ll see!” I hear the plaintiffs cried
When their demands the court denied,
And soon Moore’s tack they too then tried;
That’s when the limits died.

So bye, bye to restrictions we’d try;
Corporate spending now unending to the ad men will fly.
On the other hand, a book we can’t be denied
Near elections when it praises some guy –
No, not even for a ballot-placed guy.

[Arthur T.]

In

A long, long time ago –

Well, I guess the thread drift was worthwhile. Nice song.

[Rich Brown]

Post by Gary McGath
I thought everyone knew that. The case was specifically a lawsuit by
Hillary Clinton to block the release of a movie critical of her (called
"Hillary: The Movie").

A former neighbor of mine made a similarly political documentary - this
one about the recall election for Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker. In that
case, money wasn't an attackable issue; Du and Matt paid for it out-of-
pocket.

The Walker administration made the right tactical choice - they ignored
it. As a result, "Forward" played in the festival circuit, won a few
awards, and largely disappeared.

It's still a good movie, imho. https://vimeo.com/ondemand/forward

Now we are certainly off topic.

[Lee Gold XP]

Post by Arthur T.
Lee, if you want this for Xeno, might I suggest a September
issue?
Title: Banned Books
ttto: Weapon Shops of Isher by Leslie Fish

Noted.

You may also want some day to look at "Banned Books Week" by Jane Mailander
in Xeno #42.

--Lee

[Arthur T.]

Post by Lee Gold XP
You may also want some day to look at "Banned Books Week" by Jane Mailander
in Xeno #42.

Yes I did. Thank you. It's a good song, and I'm glad I didn't
accidentally closely copy someone's theme accidentally, again (see
Anvils Keep Falling on my Head).

[Arthur T.]

Post by Arthur T.
I'm proud it's banned book week.

Since I inadvertently started this brouhaha, I figured I ought
to give my reactions. I'll be replying to everything posted before
now, mostly not quoting and not noting who said what.

It still appears to me that BBW does work to publicize an
ongoing problem. But it seems to do nothing more. I don't see any
interventions on its site. As such, I'm less proud, but I'll stand
by my filk.

Some of the programs libraries build around BBW are better than
what BBW itself does. For instance, it was at one of those where I
first heard about the song Strange Fruit.

Some challenges are about whether a book is appropriate for the
grade level. But we don't get to see whether the book was merely in
the school library or if it was an assigned or suggested book for a
class. A book not appropriate for a 4th-grader might still be
appropriate for a K-6 (or especially an elhi) school library.

An organization which does seem to get its hands dirty is FIRE,
which I found out about from a genre-appropriate video you might
like:

The above video has a Neil Gaiman statement which I took into my
commonplace book:
There are people you do not want to upset in the world: the
politically disenfranchised who feel that they have nothing to lose,
those who feel that the time has come for revolution. Then out on the
edges, beyond any of those, are science fiction and fantasy fans
whose favorite show has been canceled in an untimely way.

And onto Citizens United....

For quite a while I was upset with the decision. I also felt
that it institutionalized "one dollar - one vote".

It took quite some time plus some conversations with others to
change my mind. I now agree that a ruling against CU would have been
a blow to the 1st amendment. This also, then, calls into question a
number of other views I had about money in elections.

Basically, I don't like what the CU decision led to. But I now
think that I'd like even less what ruling against CU would have
meant. I'm annoyed with myself for having let consequences so bias
me on a free speech / censorship issue.

[Lee Gold XP]

Post by Arthur T.
Some challenges are about whether a book is appropriate for the
grade level. But we don't get to see whether the book was merely in
the school library or if it was an assigned or suggested book for a
class. A book not appropriate for a 4th-grader might still be
appropriate for a K-6 (or especially an elhi) school library.

"Elhi"?
It's not in Wikipedia.
It's not in Urban Dictionary.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/elhi - Relating to or
intended for use in grades 1 to 12.
I'd suggest not assuming everyone knows it.

=======================================================

I once found John Norman's MARAUDERS OF GOR in a public library's
"CHILDREN'S FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION" section and asked
the librarian if it was really supposed to be there.

She said yes, so I let it fall open to its most-read pages and (no surprise)
it went to the gang rape scene (of the 12 year old girl) and I asked her
to read that page. She turned several interesting colors, and I suggested
it be re-classified to "Teenaged." She took it away for a reappraisal.

--Lee

[Tim Merrigan]

Post by Lee Gold XP

Post by Arthur T.
Some challenges are about whether a book is appropriate for the
grade level. But we don't get to see whether the book was merely in
the school library or if it was an assigned or suggested book for a
class. A book not appropriate for a 4th-grader might still be
appropriate for a K-6 (or especially an elhi) school library.

"Elhi"?

From context (a common way for me to build my vocabulary) "elhi" is
more commonly referred to as K-12 and refers to a combined elementary,
middle, and high school.

Post by Lee Gold XP
It's not in Wikipedia.
It's not in Urban Dictionary.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/elhi - Relating to or
intended for use in grades 1 to 12.
I'd suggest not assuming everyone knows it.
=======================================================
I once found John Norman's MARAUDERS OF GOR in a public library's
"CHILDREN'S FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION" section and asked
the librarian if it was really supposed to be there.
She said yes, so I let it fall open to its most-read pages and (no surprise)
it went to the gang rape scene (of the 12 year old girl) and I asked her
to read that page. She turned several interesting colors, and I suggested
it be re-classified to "Teenaged." She took it away for a reappraisal.
--Lee

["Jim Goulder"]

Lee Gold XP <***@ca.rr.com> wrote:
: On 1/15/2018 10:48 PM, Arthur T. wrote:

: > Some challenges are about whether a book is appropriate for the
: > grade level. But we don't get to see whether the book was merely in
: > the school library or if it was an assigned or suggested book for a
: > class. A book not appropriate for a 4th-grader might still be
: > appropriate for a K-6 (or especially an elhi) school library.

: "Elhi"?
: It's not in Wikipedia.
: It's not in Urban Dictionary.
: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/elhi - Relating to or
: intended for use in grades 1 to 12.
: I'd suggest not assuming everyone knows it.

Elhi is also found in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Google's Ngram Viewer shows
the word peaking sharply around 1980 and tailing off since.


Elhi | Definition of Elhi by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elhi

Google Ngram Viewer
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=elhi&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2017&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Celhi%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Belhi%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BElhi%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BELHI%3B%2Cc0

[Gary McGath]

Post by "Jim Goulder"
: "Elhi"?
: It's not in Wikipedia.
: It's not in Urban Dictionary.
: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/elhi - Relating to or
: intended for use in grades 1 to 12.
: I'd suggest not assuming everyone knows it.
Elhi is also found in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Google's Ngram Viewer shows
the word peaking sharply around 1980 and tailing off since.
Elhi | Definition of Elhi by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elhi

"Elhi" sounds like a good name for a race of gods in a fantasy novel.

["Jim Goulder"]

Gary McGath <***@removemcgathremove.com> wrote:
: "Elhi" sounds like a good name for a race of gods in a fantasy novel.

Perhaps because it sounds like a contraction of the Aramaic.

Elahi - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elahi

[Gary McGath]

Post by "Jim Goulder"
: "Elhi" sounds like a good name for a race of gods in a fantasy novel.
Perhaps because it sounds like a contraction of the Aramaic.
Elahi - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elahi

I was thinking of "Elohim," which is obviously related, plus sounding a
bit like "all high."

[Kate Gladstone]

The first time I encountered “Elhi,” it was at the beginning of a sentence (and thus capitalized), and I wondered if it was the name of someone from the Bible or from the Book of Mormon.

[Arthur T.]

Post by Lee Gold XP
"Elhi"?
It's not in Wikipedia.
It's not in Urban Dictionary.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/elhi - Relating to or
intended for use in grades 1 to 12.
I'd suggest not assuming everyone knows it.

When they show up in your normal reading, when they show up in
crosswords, when you hang around librarians, unusual terms can seem
common. I easily forget that "normal" is not the same for me as for
others, that not everyone does or remembers crosswords, and that the
people I hang out with are no closer to normal than I am.

I was not trying to be cryptic, and I'm sorry I sent some of you
on research trips.

[Gary McGath]

Post by Arthur T.
I was not trying to be cryptic, and I'm sorry I sent some of you
on research trips.

Seeing something that sends me on a research trip is fun!

[Arthur T.]

Post by Lee Gold XP
I once found John Norman's MARAUDERS OF GOR in a public library's
"CHILDREN'S FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION" section and asked
the librarian if it was really supposed to be there.

I once saw "Deliverance" on a library's list of books
recommended for the YA (or was it just below YA age?) crowd. The
list was years old when I saw it, so I didn't have the opportunity to
ask a librarian about it.

[Tim Merrigan]

Post by Arthur T.
a library's list of books
recommended for the YA (or was it just below YA age?) crowd.

There's a difference? In my apparent observation, the people actually
reading, so called, YA (young adult) books are 12 to 14 year olds, as
opposed to actual young adults (15 to 25 more or less).