Book banning has been around ever since there have been books to ban, and the practice is alive and increasingly active in the United States today. 

Controlling what people, particularly young people, read has become a potent weapon in our repetitive social wars, and the books that book banners are most likely to target often address issues that are currently under political attack.

The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of the books that receive the most challenges nationwide each year, and a look at the association’s annual listings says quite a bit about the changing concerns of book banners. 

In 2001, book banners were preoccupied with “Harry Potter,” which topped the annual listing, followed by Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men.” Potter particularly enraged some religious conservatives because the series focused on witches and witchcraft, and was considered perhaps even satanic.

Steinbeck, on the other hand, took an all-too-close look at human nature that many found uncomfortable. And by modern standards, the 1930s book also contains racial and sexist language that thankfully has been left in the past.

By the 2020s, book banners weren’t overly worried about topline authors or classics. The books being challenged more recently have largely been in line with the country’s newest cultural controversies, and most recently, that’s been gender sensitivity, race, diversity and inclusivity. 

The pace of book-banning efforts has increased dramatically in recent years, leading the ALA to issue a statement indicating an “alarming increase” in book-ban campaigns in the U.S. 

Specifically, the Library Association reported that there were 729 unique attempts to ban books in public and school libraries in 2021. A year later, the number of attempts had surged to 1,269. The association also reported that 90% of all book-banning efforts began in school libraries.

But does book banning work? That depends on your goal.

If the goal is to prevent a book from being read, then the answer is a pretty solid “no.” People, including young people, will read what they want, and they will find ways to access what they want to read. 

A recent study conducted by researchers at Carnegie Mellon and George Mason University reached some rather counterintuitive results in that regard.

The study tracked the history of book banning in the U.S. and found it has increased in recent decades. Researchers found that banning a book from school or public libraries actually increases its readership about 12%, population-wide, based on sales statistics. 

Most book bannings are aimed at keeping what banners deem to be evil writings out of the tender grasp and minds of young people. The study found doing that, in particular, doesn’t work. Among young people, a banned book’s readership increases about 19%. That shouldn’t be terribly surprising. Telling young people they shouldn’t read something is like waving a red flag at a bull.

The researchers also found that if a state bans a book, sales in other states where it has not been banned increase.

However, if your goal is to crank up political support, particularly among socially conservative voters, and to raise political campaign funds by doing so, then calls for book banning can be quite successful. Yelling about books that should be banned is a proven way to raise money for politicians who are pandering to fringe voters. 

In recent times, most of the saber rattling about books has come from the political right, including Republicans running for office. Their fundraising literature often includes calls for “protecting” children from evil authors. And among their constituents, such chest beating serves as a call to send money.

So, if the goal isn’t so much to ban the book as it is to use the issue politically, then calling for bans is indeed successful. 

Efforts to ban books may also work more subtly in controlling what is published in the future. If a particular subject is almost guaranteed to bring about calls for banning it, then a publisher might decide it’s not worth the hassle to bring a book to print.

Far worse is the potential intimidation that banning can inflict on talented authors. Do they spend time working on a book that they know will be controversial, or do they take a less controversial approach?

John Steinbech didn’t flinch from detractors and neither has J.K. Rowling, and the world is richer for their work. But what of some future talented writers who could offer much to a world that longs for fresh ideas? Will they weigh the politics and tweak their messages to fit? If they do, the book banners will have won.

 

John Edwards is publisher emeritus of The Smithfield Times. His email address is j.branchedwards@gmail.com.