13 books we bet you never knew were banned
<p><strong>The Dictionary</strong></p>
<p>Wait … what? Some students working on their spelling might have been out of luck when the teacher asked them to “look it up”. In 1987, the Anchorage School Board in Alaska <span><a href="https://theweek.com/articles/459795/17-americas-most-surprising-banned-books">banned</a></span> the American Heritage Dictionary because it had “objectionable” entries, like the slang definitions for “balls,” “knocker” and “bed.” A California elementary school <span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/the-11-most-surprising-ba_n_515381.html?slideshow=true#gallery/5635/0">banned</a></span> Merriam Webster from its shelves because the definition of oral sex was “not age appropriate”.</p>
<p><strong>The Lorax</strong></p>
<p>Dr. Seuss may have endeared the hearts of millions, but <em>The Lorax</em>, about the perils of deforestation, didn’t sit well with California loggers. One community <span><a href="https://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/09/24/banned-books-week-green-eggs-and-ham">banned</a></span> the book for its negative portrayal of the industry. (By the way, you've been saying "Dr. Seuss" wrong.) </p>
<p><strong>Yertle the Turtle</strong></p>
<p>Anti-deforestation wasn’t Dr. Seuss’s only political message to make schools squirm. One Canadian school announced <em>Yertle the Turtle</em> one of its <span><a href="https://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/09/24/banned-books-week-green-eggs-and-ham">banned books</a></span> in 2012 because of this line: "I know up on top you are seeing great sights, but down here at the bottom, we too should have rights." Apparently, that line was too partisan for a school that had banned political messages.</p>
<p><strong>James and the Giant Peach</strong></p>
<p>No matter how you feel about human-sized bugs, Roald Dahl’s <em>James and the Giant Peach</em> seems innocent enough at first glance. Some schools have challenged it for language, and tobacco and alcohol references. But perhaps the oddest? In 1999, one small Wisconsin town officially made it one of its banned books after <span><a href="http://orgs.utulsa.edu/spcol/?p=3246">claiming</a></span> a scene when the spider licks her lips could be “taken in two ways, including sexual”. Can’t say that would have been our first thought.</p>
<p><strong>Where the Wild Things Are</strong></p>
<p>It was tough enough for author Maurice Sendak to get his borderline dark and scary children’s book published. When it finally did hit the shelves, it got in even more trouble. <em>Where the Wild Things Are</em> is now a fun classic, but it was initially <span><a href="https://theweek.com/articles/459795/17-americas-most-surprising-banned-books">banned</a></span> because little Max’s punishment was starvation– well, lack of supper – and the story had supernatural themes.</p>
<p><strong>Where the Sidewalk Ends</strong></p>
<p>You might want to reread Shel Silverstein’s collection of poems, <em>Where the Sidewalk Ends</em> – you may have missed something in its quirky, funny and touching verses. <span><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/giving-tree-50-sadder-remembered">According to some schools</a></span>, the book actually promotes everything from drug use and suicide to ignoring parents and telling lies. Yikes.</p>
<p><strong>Harriet the Spy</strong></p>
<p>Who knew a child misfit could create such a stir? Sure, kids loved Harriet for her strong will and rebelliousness, but critics <span><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87779452">argued</a></span> the “spy” was less of a good-girl Nancy Drew and more of a mean-spirited gossip. Some schools banned Louise Fitzhugh’s <em>Harriet the Spy</em> to keep students from the bad influence.</p>
<p><strong>The Giving Tree</strong></p>
<p>To some, this was Shel Silverstein’s sweet story about unconditional love. But to one bitter Colorado librarian who <span><a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-26/entertainment/ca-340_1_fullerton-college">took it off the shelves</a></span>, <em>The Giving Tree</em> was just plain “sexist”.</p>
<p><strong>Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?</strong></p>
<p>Might as well stop trying to wrack your brain for what in the world could have been grounds to take <em>Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?</em> out of schools. It was all an awkward mistake. Eric Carle might be a famous children’s illustrator, but the Texas State Board of Education <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jan/28/brown-bear-banned-texas">wouldn’t approve</a></span> the storybook after recognising writer Bill Martin Jr.’s name from another book: <em>Ethical Marxism</em>. There was just one problem – the political Bill Martin was not the same Bill Martin Jr. as had written the children’s book. Next time, maybe the school board should do its homework.</p>
<p><strong>The Diary of a Young Girl</strong></p>
<p>No, Anne Frank’s diary hasn’t been removed from libraries because of the terror of hiding from Nazis. Schools have <span><a href="http://www.npr.org/2014/09/27/351811082/banned-books-remind-us-of-the-power-of-the-written-word">deemed</a></span> some of the 14-year-old’s descriptions of her anatomy as “pornographic”. More cringe-worthy? One Alabama textbook committee asked for it to be <span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012804001.html">banned</a></span> because it was “a real downer”. </p>
<p><strong>Charlotte’s Web</strong></p>
<p>The unlikely friendship between a pig and spider sparked a much bigger controversy among Kansas parents in 1952. They had Charlotte's Web <span><a href="https://theweek.com/articles/459795/17-americas-most-surprising-banned-books">banned</a></span> because talking animals went against their religious beliefs, arguing humans are "the only creatures that can communicate vocally. Showing lower life forms with human abilities is sacrilegious and disrespectful to God”. We wonder what they’d think about the <em>Cat in the Hat</em> and Mickey Mouse and the three little bears and ...</p>
<p><strong>The Grapes of Wrath</strong></p>
<p>John Steinbeck’s work of fiction was based on the reality of the Dust Bowl that left migrants homeless and in search of work. In Kern County, California, where the protagonists land, the real-life county board of supervisors didn’t appreciate the author’s portrayal of how locals didn’t help migrants. A 1939 vote <span><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95190615">removed</a></span> <em>The Grapes of Wrath</em> from the area’s schools and libraries.</p>
<p><strong>To Kill a Mockingbird</strong></p>
<p>Despite being so beloved, Harper Lee’s novel is still the <span><a href="http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/classics">fourth most-challenged or banned</a></span> classic book. Advocates of banning it argue its issues with racism and sexuality aren’t suitable for young readers.</p>
<p><em>Written by Marissa Laliberte. This article first appeared in <span><a href="http://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/thought-provoking/13-books-we-bet-you-never-knew-were-banned?items_per_page=All">Reader’s Digest</a></span>. For more of what you love from the world’s best-loved magazine, <span><a href="http://readersdigest.innovations.com.au/c/readersdigestsubscribe?utm_source=readersdigest&utm_campaign=RDSUB&utm_medium=display&keycode=WRA85S">here’s our best subscription offer</a></span>.</em></p>
<p><img style="width: 100px !important; height: 100px !important;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7820640/1.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/f30947086c8e47b89cb076eb5bb9b3e2" /></p>
