On book banning Or, how the new censorship consensus trivializes art and undermines democracy

Review by Booklist Review

Writer and professor Wells investigates the controversial and timely topic of book banning. He begins his treatise with an anecdote: he was called to his child's school to discuss the culling of books that were "too Eurocentric" and "too male." Censorship from groups such as Moms for Liberty is rampant, but Wells points out that liberal censorship and cancel culture are on the rise as well. Both, Wells argues, are challenges to democracy not just in the U.S. but in his native Canada as well. He interviewed public and school librarians about their collection development policies and what goes into weeding, noting that the process can hide the subversive removal of items. The author goes on to discuss the history of book banning, starting with ancient Rome and the destruction of early libraries, then moving on to notorious censor Anthony Comstock. Philosophical writings from John Stuart Mill and John Milton, among others, are also included. Ultimately, the book calls out different groups' definitions of harm and warns of the intellectual deterioration these conflicts cause.

From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.

---

Review by Publisher's Weekly Review

Critic Wells (Norman Jewison) delivers a potent behind-the-scenes look at book banning in this standout account. Wells was a member of the group that chose which titles should be pulled from the shelves of his children's school library after the librarian expressed a desire to cull old books they found "too Eurocentric, too male, too heteronormative." He was flummoxed by the process, which he found led to "boil away the imaginative quality of children's stories and treat them as vehicles for politically coded messages" rather than opportunities for discussion. Wells offers an accessible history of censorship, covering Augustus's book burning in ancient Rome, and advocates for using John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds that "speech should be regulated only when it might reasonably be expected to cause harm to others," when considering removing titles from circulation. Along the way, he observes that, per Mills, those who claim to know what is and is not harmful "have confused their certainty with absolute certainty"--the imposition of which never ends well. Wells convincingly advocates for teachers to center ambiguity, sympathy, and curiosity when teaching about language, rather than harm, and for "the building of critical thinking abilities." It's a decisive and fascinating take on a hot-button issue. (June)

(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

---

Review by Kirkus Book Review

Don't burn this book! For as long as there have been books, people have wanted to censor them. From Roman emperors through popes and kings, from temperance evangelists to Moms for Liberty, there has always been a book police. Civic and religious groups have worried about exposing children to potentially harmful ideas--even if those ideas promote inclusion and diversity. By contrast, university professors and intellectual elites see weapons in old terms for racial discrimination and gender difference. Ira Wells wants a middle ground, where we recognize that not all books are right for everyone. He recognizes that notions of appropriateness, obscenity, offensiveness, and blasphemy change over time. Literature cannot be separated from the social worlds in which it is written and read. And yet, Wells also wants a world in which there are works of lasting value. Book banning, he writes, "thrives in an intellectual culture in which art is not analyzed for its inevitable political assumptions but reduced to them….It also thrives when people fail to articulate why reading imaginative literature matters." In the end, though, this book is really less about literature or even free speech than it is about public libraries. "Libraries have long provided vital intellectual infrastructure to liberal democracies," he writes. These days, they serve a broader social function, often providing classes in language and citizenship, workshops on literacy and finance, and internet access for those who cannot afford it at home. Wells wants a world in which a well-informed public can access and judge books on their own and thus can appreciate, and argue with, the literary past: "Expressive freedom is the condition that makes both art and democracy possible." That seems like a reasonable position. Unless you don't believe in art and democracy. A thoughtful, conversationally written reflection on why banning books damages the fabric of social belonging. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

---