Book/series: In Cold Blood
Author: Truman Capote
Banned for: Sex, violence, profanity. Also, bloody murder. And, upon researching themes from the book (and, uh, reading the book), "Homoerotic desire is just below the surface of the relationship between Dick and Perry, between Perry and Willie-Jay, and, more implicitly, in the meta-textual relationship of Truman Capote to his two subjects."
Lessons Taught: People aren't what they seem, hard work pays off (usually) and screw it, this is a murder mystery, who needs lessons?
Rating: Eight out of ten stars.
I took Advanced Journalism this year at school, and in our second semester, this was required reading. Why? Because this isn't an average murder mystery by the beloved creator of Breakfast at Tiffany's. This is what Capote called "the nonfiction novel," this is truth, and it's written- that makes it a form of journalism. While we read it, we discussed the differences between nonfiction writing and journalism, and also the journalistic thoughts put into the piece- interviews, research, etc. My mom was shocked I was reading such a book, as she herself hand't read it until long past my age, and was a little bit shocked at how well I handled it. I guess kids these days are more grown up. Anyways, it is a somewhat bloody novel- at some points. Looking at Capote's masterpiece, the banning is somewhat understandable, but personally, I think it's just disrespectful to the people in this book (they're not even characters, they're people) to ban this. More on that in an Anne Frank defense.

In Cold Blood by Truman Capote tells the story of Alvin Dewey, a detective, and Perry Smith and Dick Hickhock, two murderers with "homoerotic desire" below the surface of their relationship. Perry and Dick murdered the Clutters, a well-respected family in a small Kansas town. Obviously, the scene where the daughter's best friend discovers the bodies is pretty gruesome, but for the most part, the novel isn't actually that bloody, not until the end. I would say the real horror lies in the psyches of the murderers, especially Perry, and other criminals that come into play. At one point, Dick runs over a dog, just because he can. At another point, Perry and Dick give two people a ride and plan on killing them and taking any money they have, but eventually decide against it. This isn't like most mysteries, as it doesn't build up to the who/how revelation. Rather, it leads up to how/why/what. Why did Dick and Perry kill these people? How, other than a gun, did they accomplish this? What happened in the Clutter house? And, most of all, what could provoke two people to murder a family they didn't even know in cold blood?

This is a hard one to argue with, as the reasons for it being banned aren't necessarily false, they're just stupid reasons. I can't really remember much sex from the book but hey, book sex. It's usually vaguely worded. According to a review of (one of) the movie adaption(s), there is a scene with a prostitute. Well, I can't really argue with that, but banning sex is honestly kind of a random move. Are you scared your children will learn what sex is at an early age when they wander into the adult section and say "hey, I just read the back of this book about murder, and since all children love nonfiction, I'll read it!" Or are you afraid by reading about sex, they're want to have sex? Then I guess your schools won't have sex ed, huh? And forget about giving them "the talk," better that they don't know. Ever.

Violence. Um. Yes, there's violence. Most of it doesn't fully come in till the end of the book, when Dick and Perry stand trial, and when they're (spoilers) sent to death row. There, the bloody pasts of all the other inmates are described, and every single one of them is hung even (spoilers) Dick and Perry. But this is what the real world is like. Death row and murder are, unfortunately, a thing. And, after doing some research, the state that banned In Cold Blood actually has the death penalty. Well, okay. But as long as you're arguing against violence, please take Tom and Jerry off the air? Also, Youtube.

Profanity. People swear. I guess no one in Georgia can watch or read a bunch of things with the YA stamp.

As I mentioned previously, the real terror in this novel is the minds of the criminals. Capote did his research with this novel, finding letters from parents, really anything he could use, and the result were two frightening villains, Dick and Perry. Personally, Perry was the worst, to me. Why? Because you identified with them. But it wasn't like saying "I feel for you Darth Vader," it was like they were your friends. Capote introduced them and didn't suggest they might be the killers until after we knew them, so we already found them likable. Then, the book goes "also, these people might be murderers" and builds up to "haha, they're killers" but you already think they're cool. It's hard to believe that these people might be cold-blooded (ha!) murderers. Then, they got put on trial, and honestly, reading scenes like that make you go "shoot, I don't know you at all"  and that's actually a big deal in the real world. Just because someone is likable doesn't mean they're a good person. Lots of stories usually set up villains as  jerks. Slippery jerks, funny jerks, ice cold jerks, but jerks nonetheless. That's helpful, because you feel comfortable hating the villain. And in this novel, you don't want to hate them, not until the end. And even then, you still feel sorry for them. The reason I find Perry "the worst" is because the whole novel, he seems like a good guy. He has a sad backstory, he's fun, he protects young women from rape (okay, at one point, Dick does get hate-able), and it even seems like he might be innocent of the crime. He even tells Dick he thinks there's something wrong with them, as they've killed a family- he knows what he's doing is bad.

In his statement, he claims to he killed his father, shot Herbert and Kenyon Clutter, and after some time, amends previous statements to say he also shot Bonnie and Nancy Clutter.

Chilling. But an important lesson for the real world. Not all the villains are cloaks and spells.

Now, a lighter topic of conversation. Here's what I really want to talk about! The "homoerotic desire"!!!!!! While reading the book, there were some moments I thought "um, do Dick and Perry have a thing?" and there is, I guess, some suggestion between Perry and his friend, Willie-Jay. But the real "suggestion" with our little boy Perry isn't with another book character, oh no. It's with Capote himself.

Movies like Capote played up this "friendship", showing us that it might have run deeper not with sex and kissing, but with conversation, and the way they treated each other. And, I swear to God, at least half of the scenes with Perry are dedicated to his eyes.

While this wasn't so much a defense as a literary review, I'll wrap this up properly. In Cold Blood might not be for young kids, but it's a good read for those mature enough to handle it. The characters are very real (not just because they, you know, are) and that makes the themes and ideas in the books plausible and compelling. I don't think it deserves to be banned, maybe just put on a high shelf. If you can reach it, you can read it.

Should In Cold Blood be banned? No.

Book/series: Harry Potter
Author: J.K. Rowling
Banned for: Magic, setting a "bad example", "darker stuff."
Lessons Taught: Everyone has good in them, anyone can make a difference, too many to count.
Rating: Ten of ten stars. I will be honest with you; I am a Potterhead. I love Harry Potter. But I'm a huge nerd, so let's ignore that and get on with the case.

I first read Harry Potter when I was about eight, after being urged to by none other than my mother, an avid reader, and my father, a not-so-avid reader. I remember my mother reading parts of the first book to me when I was a baby in need of bedtime stories, so of course I would see a parent marking this book as "off-limits" a bit odd. However, when you look at it, it's only too easy to see why. Books like Harry Potter- that is to say, books with magic- are often thought of by churches as unacceptable. I could write a whole post on why this is a load of rubbish, and I probably will, but this is just a defense for Harry Potter, not books everywhere.

Harry Potter tells the story of a boy whose parents died when he was only a year old. They were killed by a powerful dark wizard called Lord Voldemort, but when he tried to kill him too, Voldemort's own curse bounced back and he (supposedly) died. Harry is sent to live with his Muggle (non-magical) family in a bland neighborhood. He grows up living a horrible life, but on his eleventh birthday, he discovers he is a wizard and that he'll be attending a special school for children with magical abilities. Over the course of the books, Harry goes to school, makes friends, and deals with the struggles of of adapting to a new world and getting his homework done on time. Also, the evil Voldemort returns and Harry also has to deal with the fact that he's the only one who can defeat him.

The magic in the books is not necessarily "of the devil," but could in fact be seen as a representation of "gifts" we are all born with. Harry, and other magical children, go to school to learn how to safely use these gifts. Whether they end up using them for good or bad is entirely up to them. Many kids that read Harry Potter will come away saying "I want to be a witch/wizard!" but, having read an entire series about someone who uses their powers for good, they will want to do the same. And I would like to point out that, in holy scriptures, the most prominent users of magic are not villains- rather, they are those who follow God. Jesus, Samson, and Moses are just a few examples. But they all chose to use these gifts for what they thought was right. Jesus encountered Satan at one point, who tried to tempt him, but Jesus stayed good, just like Harry Potter does over the course of the series.

The main villain, Voldemort, induces fear in everyone, even his own followers. For this reason, barely anyone calls him by his chosen name, and he is usually referred to as You-Know-Who, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, and (to his followers) the Dark Lord. His followers can "summon" him by pressing a tattoo branded into their arm. He punishes them if they fail, and if they succeed, he rarely rewards them. That's why it is my opinion that Voldemort is as a villain, more or less, a representation of the Devil. Because of his failed attempt to kill him, Harry Potter shares many similarities with Voldemort, but he defies Voldemort's mark- literal mark, as he scarred Harry with a lightning bolt- and makes his own path towards good. The main "father figure" of the novel is Albus Dumbledore, who is seen as the most powerful wizard in the world. He always seems to know everything that is going on, is willing to help anyone who asks (or sometimes, doesn't ask) for it, and can see the good in everyone. Voldemort sees Dumbledore as an annoyance that cares too much about minorities, with too good a heart and too many powers to be simply crushed under his boots. In the fifth book, the two meet in person and duel, which shows the reader that the two are more or less black-and-white, polar opposites and, essentially, enemies. And, with Dumbledore's snow-white hair and flowing beard, it isn't too hard to see how he might be a representation of an angel or even God.

So, overall, I'd say the magic in Harry Potter isn't something to hide from, as the battle between the good wizards and bad wizards in this book is more-or-less a battle between those who follow the villain (the Devil) and those who follow the Harry (the savior) and Dumbledore (the angel or possibly God). Many other characters come in as well, all of them very real. Harry has to cope with many losses, but we also see the struggle between inner good and bad, not necessarily in him, but in characters like Severus Snape, Draco Malfoy, and Peter Pettigrew.

Next, setting a "bad example." Harry and his friends break a lot of rules over the course of the series, though the majority of them are simple things like sneaking out after dark and stealing potion ingredients. The usually break these rules for "the greater good," and because they think they are doing what's right and are trying their best to help people they care about. If you take a "the end justifies the means" approach, then I would say that their rule breaking can be excused. Two of Harry's friends, Fred and George Weasley, are pranksters but are also friendly. In the seventh book, Harry and his friends become fugitives because they're working against Voldemort. Overall, I'd say their rule breaking can be excused. No one is ever put in danger unless they're a "bad guy." Sometimes they do put themselves in danger as well, but that is typically for the safety of others.

Finally, the "darker stuff." In later Harry Potter books, and even at some instances in the earlier ones, there are scenes that could be taken as frightening. Many people, good and bad, die. But the darkness in these books is just an example of how dark the real world can get. But I finished the books when I was nine, and I don't remember being scared. Rather, I was thrilled. I was too caught up in the conflicts and the characters to care about giants and dragons and Death Eaters (Voldemort's followers). The deaths, rather than scare me, saddened me.

In conclusion: I'd say Harry Potter is a great book for kids. It teaches kids to do right and rebel against forces of the dark, and that friendship and love are more powerful than any evil. It may scare children, but not too badly, and their hearts will stay in the right places. If anything, they'll be more inclined to do good.

Should Harry Potter be banned? No.