I think because it's really hard for little kids to understand. Just a guess. I know when I tried it I couldn't read more than 20 pages. (I tried it three times before I got all the way through.)
Then again, I think these lists are positive. Most of those books are ones kids should be reading; we can consult this to know the good ones! (Although I think Goosebumps should be shat on, along with every Robert Cormier book ever written, and Lois Duncan, and Caroline Cooney.)
I HATE ROBERT CORMIER. I only ever read "Fade", that garbage that the Honors English (I think) kids had to read at Reef, and it made me want to puke on myself. I enjoyed Goosebumps books, though, not cause they were quality or anything but because they were simple and entertaining (my favorites were the ones where you could choose your own path, i.e. "Go through the door on the right, turn to page XX; left door, turn to page YY"... and yes, some of them scared me... I'm a big pansy). Sometimes you don't want to make your brain work.
Actually, I read it my junior year at South Miami. It's a great book to analyze, that's why we read it for AP English. It's definitely not a simple book to read, therefore it is pretty shocking that it's not on that list.
House of Spirits may have been banned for the second part that talks about the struggles of the workers, the Allende victory, and the Pinochet coup and regime. That is to say, if they didn't try to ban it for the rapes in the beginning (and more explicitly in the end), the violence, the regular relations with the prostitute, and so forth.
Though, you're right, most of those themes are in 100 Years... which would suggest the sad idea that they tried to ban it solely due to the (justified) criticism of the Pinochet regime.
Good point. I didn't even consider that. Thing is that 100YOS also has anti-American sentiment -- the whole bit about the banana company -- although I guess it could be considered less obvious. The main difference that I can find between House of Spirits and 100YOS is that 100YOS is quite difficult to read in comparison and is probably less-read in schools and therefore less of a threat. And I think the people suggesting the banning of these books probably care more that their children not read about sex and violence and, in the case of books like Harry Potter, challenges to their religion than about politics. I wouldn't credit them enough to think that they read even halfway through HoS before flipping out about the sex, anyway.
Totally, which is why it's so weird. I can see 100YOS slipping through (though I'm pretty damned positive that I've seen it on banned lists) because people will be too slow to link the fruit company business, but I suppose HOS is different in the sense that it definitely sides with the working class, and has a nicely argued pro-socialist point of view (without going over to communist indoctrination, which is partially why I like it so much), and I imagine that anytime you mention "a victory over the bosses", somewhere, a republican trembles. The sex might definitely have flipped them out, but far as I remember 100YOS had about the same amount, no
( ... )
It's difficult in that it requires more effort to sort out than a normally-narrated book. The circular time and the recycling of names and even the ways GGM describes things are unlike most things people have read before. The first time I read it I had to go back occassionally to remember where in "time" the narration actually was, and I imagine that people who don't care about the book won't bother to try to understand
( ... )
Comments 9
Then again, I think these lists are positive. Most of those books are ones kids should be reading; we can consult this to know the good ones! (Although I think Goosebumps should be shat on, along with every Robert Cormier book ever written, and Lois Duncan, and Caroline Cooney.)
Reply
Reply
Uggh. I couldn't finish it.
Reply
Reply
Though, you're right, most of those themes are in 100 Years... which would suggest the sad idea that they tried to ban it solely due to the (justified) criticism of the Pinochet regime.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment