Conclusion

During the weeks of writing my blog on banned and challenged books from 1990-2010, I found that a lot of books were banned or challenged for very similar reasons.

It was not until I started my post on why Where's Waldo was challenged that I found a quote by Quindlen and discovered that the basis for most of the books on the challenged and banned lists where because of this reason, not to mention I liked it too. Quindlen (1993) states, ...thereby succumbing to an impulse that is at the heart of most book-banning in this country. And that is the temptation to treat kids like morons, to sell little people short. Don't do it. Finally to drive her point home she adds The brain is a muscle, at least figuratively, and to develop it you have to work it. If kids don't run up against ideas that are disquieting, or challenging, or different from what they've always believed, or different from what their parents believe, how will they ever grow as human beings? and Ideas are only lethal if you suppress and don't discuss them. Ignorance is not bliss, it's stupid. Banning books shows you don't trust your kids to think and you don't trust yourself to be able to talk with them. Knowledge is power. The breast is on page four of "Where's Waldo?" Your kids can handle it. It's the adults who have the problem. I found Quindlen's point to be true as I went back over my research and findings for  the Harry Potter and Goosebumps series being removed or banned from libraries are the same.

Harry Potter is a very popular book among people young and old but it was also at the top of the list last decade of the ALA top 100 banned or challenged books, Arguments for the book being challenged and removed from library shelves are that it is corrupting children's minds and that witchcraft and the occult are bad for children, in response to this Miller (2001) has struck back against a Reverend  with a strong opinion that the book needs to be banned and said '
In addition to Cd's by Bruce Springsteen and Disney videos such as "Pinocchio," you burned several copies of the "Harry Potter" books.
"Harry Potter is a big flash point," you said, describing the books as "supernatural."
I don't have to ask if you've read a single page of a single Harry Potter book. People like you, who condemn works of art for not fitting a narrow set of values, rarely take the time to experience the items you condemn. On the other hand though these people have every right to object to the Harry Potter series. Some in the USA have even gone so far as to quote the First Amendment, ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' In an article from 2006 by Mail Online Laura Mallory has used the First Amendment in her argument against Harry Potter saying ''That would not happen if students instead read the Bible, Mallory said. She added that the books were harmful to children who are unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy. The children, she said, try to imitate Harry Potter and cast spells on classmates. "They're not educationally suitable and have been shown to be harmful to some kids," Mallory said. She argued that teachers do not assign other religious books like the Bible''

The reason for the Goosebumps series being challenged while similar in that the content was thought to be inappropriate for children, is different in that the way the books are written is bad for children. Diana West is quoted in the Kirsten (1997) article saying the aim of such "shock fiction" is to induce a repeated "fight or flight" reaction, a strangely pleasurable sensation in which "stress-induced panic takes over the autonomic nervous system." The result is "reading as glandular activity" -- "a crude tool of physical stimulation, wholly devoid of mental, emotional or spiritual engagement. She then goes on to state that in her view "Goosebumps debase the act of reading, and more important the reader himself". It just goes to show that not all of the books on the list are there because of inappropriate content. But this does not seem to have effected kids reading it too much since Bestcovery.com even regards the Goosebumps series as the 4th best children's book series for grades 1-5. and in most reviews by people who have read the book they have all been fairly positive and the scary scenes and themes that some people seem to have a problem with does not seem to effect the reviewers. Also Wargo (1997) states that any child who is reading is an improvement over one who is not. Kids love to read about scary ideas and scary situations. These books reach them where they are. Are they great literature? Certainly not. But. given the last-paced electronic age today's kids are growing up in. Goosebumps keeps young people reading--and that's worth a lot. She then goes on to say telling kids they can't read something will only increase the attraction. My mother wouldn't let me watch The Three Stooges because she thought it too violent. I grew up with many a young boy my age pretending to poke and slap in imitation of the Stooges' brand of comedy. It only made me more eager to sneak around the rule and find out for myself. Wargo (1997). Do we really want kids rebelling over something as little as a series of children's books that has been deemed poorly written by an adult?

Now back to Where's Wally/Waldo depending on the country you live in. As Quindlen pointed out The Cat in the Hat is nude except for the gloves, the tie and, yep, the hat. Winnie the Pooh does not wear pants. Just a warning. She then goes on to say Unfortunately someone took it seriously. That's the whole reason why someone wanted the book removed, because of one little barley noticeable image.

Lord of the Flies has a bunch of reasons each different to each school that banned or removed the book mainly due to the use of the word nigger and other derogatory terms towards African Americans, God, Women and the disabled. But others in defence of the book have praised the author and Jen the author of the blog Devourer of Books says, 'Lord of the flies is violent... but, in my opinion this is not handled in a gratuitous way... This is a novel about the dangers of what we can become if we completely ignore the rules of society and civilization.  Whether you agree with Golding’s assessments of human nature or not, it is sure a good conversation starter.  We read this freshman year in high school and I would not consider it too violent and graphic for us, primarily because it isn’t just trash, it is literature, and we discussed it as literature, working through some of the difficult issues in the book with our teacher and as a class'. I like this quote as well Lord of the Flies is a book that is studied in high schools across the planet and while it may not be appropriate for younger readers it should not stop older people reading it and discussing the themes brought up, After all it is only fiction.

In conclusion challenged books will continue to be challenged for a long time. But whether or not we as individuals decide to let ourselves read the books on the list it should not effect others choice to read the book, So do yourself a favor check the list out again or for the first time if you have not seen it and read some of the books on that list.


BIBLIOGRAPHY  

Quindlen, A c.1993, 'Public and private; The breast ban' The New York Times, Opinion.

Miller, M 2001, 'Harry Potter meets wizard of dumb' South Florida Business Journal, viewed 1 June 2011,
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2001/04/23/editorial2.html

Mail Online 2006, ' 'Ban Harry Potter or face more school shootings' ' Mail Online, viewed 1 June 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-408490/Ban-Harry-Potter-face-school-shootings.html

Kersten, K 1997, Goosebumps is shock fiction, Center of the American Experiment, viewed 10 September 2010,
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/1997/19970129kersten.php
Wargo, S, Graham, A 1997, 'Should kids read Goosebumps?', NEA Today, vol 16, issue 3, Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost, last viewed 10 September 2010

Devourer of Books 2008, Banned books week spotlight - Lord of the flies, Devourer of Books, viewed  1 June  2011.
http://www.devourerofbooks.com/2008/10/banned-books-week-spotlight-lord-of-the-flies/

Reflecting on my research process, findings and other discoveries

I found Blogger very easy to use once I learned how to insert images and video, Since I did not fiddle with formatting and font too much I did not get lost or sidetracked since I am usually a perfectionist and would have had the controls been more complicated.

I don't think I struggled with using any of Blogger's features, every advanced feature I used (Inserting Video and Images) was easy to use because it came with step by step prompts to insert them.

In regards to my research some of the information was a lot harder to find than other information, I found that it was mainly the items that are more popular with casual readers such as the Harry Potter series and the Goosebumps series.

EBSCOhost and YouTube continued to provide useful information and tidbits that I used for my blogs although for the last 3 posts i was not able to find any useful videos to use.

As far as using a Blogging tool to present my research I found it was a nice alternative than just writing a report since Blogger and other Blogging tools lets you add a decorative touch and it also allows you to add video along with your report. While other programs such as Word allow you to write reports they usually do not allow you to add video or audio, on the other hand programs such as PowerPoint allow you to add video and audio but do not allow you to write long reports on 1 slide. This is why I found Blogger to be very useful when writing a report such as this.