When Taffey Anderson noticed that her son had checked out Bunny Suicides from his school library, she browsed through the book. What was inside the book appalled her, so she decided to take action. She confiscated the book from her son and refused to return it. She filled out all the paperwork required to get the book banned from the library, however there was one hold up.
She refused to return the book.
When the book review board said they couldn’t do the review because she hadn’t returned the book, she returned the book, but stated that regardless of the decision she was going to burn the book, take the law into her own hands and save the world. Well those weren’t her exact words, but you get the point.
A lot of people are upset because they feel like some of their rights are being violated, and they may be.
When I first heard of this story, visions of Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451, where in the story critical thought through reading is outlawed, immediately came to mind. But then I thought about the fact that it was a middle school library and not a public library.
And some level of censorship is necessary where children are concerned. The library board said that the book’s educational value was to get young readers interested in reading. But quite frankly, if you don’t know how to read, or are not interested in some type of reading by middle school, you have issues.
A book that is mostly drawings and requires less reading then a billboard doesn’t help you learn to read, it makes you laugh. The book has no real educational value. And although I did find it entertaining, it really isn’t something that will enrich a child’s education, and therefore has no place in a school library, school being the key word. And the potential for some negative side effects of the book are reason enough to take it off the shelves of a middle school library.
In Shanghai, China there was a small jump in children committing suicide when Bunny Suicides hit the shelves. I’m not saying the book caused them to do it. I’m simply saying the fact that there is evidence of the chain of events that the children who read the book were more likely, and did, decide to commit suicide.
If that is the case, it might behoove school libraries not to stock it on their shelves. If you disagree and want to run the risk, I say we test it on your kid.
Usually when you fail to return a book from a library it just charges you for it and the library may or may not mark the price up. At which point, the library then uses the funds to buy another copy of the book, possibly a different book, but based on the popularity of this book I would guess the library would simply replace it. Maybe mark up the price a little bit.
The way I see it is it’s a win-win situation for everybody. Anderson keeps the book out of her son’s school library. The school library charges her for way more than the book costs. Then not only does the library buy another copy of the book, but buys two copies of it. And repeat.
Or at least until the library can afford a new section (perhaps where all the banned books can go?) and Anderson is the one who funds the whole thing.