Mrs. Moritz's 9th Honors English

Tuesday, October 10, 2006


You can respond to all or pick just one...

1. Is it okay to have books on making bombs in the school library?
2. Will banning books keep people from reading them?
3. Television shows are censored, so are song lyrics—what makes books different?


  • I chose the second question, and I believe that it would make people want to read them more. Some people would see why it was banned first and then maybe read it or not. For people who like to break rules they will read the books even if they don't like it. It's like sending an invatation to read it, when before it was ban they might have not even pick it up.

    By Blogger Damian L., at 2:05 PM  

  • Responding to #3:
    Books ARE censored. When I was doing reasearch on banned books I read that Fahrenheit 451 was censored for the "foul language" it had. The School that did this was met with outrage and the books were "un-censored". None the less, books are censored. It is true, however, that music and TV are censored far more then books.

    By Blogger katieorlandini, at 2:19 PM  

  • Responding to #2:
    I don't think that by banning books that will keep people from reading them. If it is a subject that someone believes strongly in, nothing will keep them from learning about or reading it. Also, alot of times if something is banned it will cause more people want to read it. It works the same way that when you tell your brother not to do something he will do it more persistently. It is in people's human nature to challenge things. That includes thier rights. People will take advantage of their rights as American citizens. The main thing that it prevents is from the book being taught in schools.

    By Blogger cvanessen2, at 2:33 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger KylieYoum, at 3:05 PM  

  • When you watch a TV show or listen to songs, you get the same effect from hearing someone drop f bombs as you do if they skip the word, or replace it with something a little different (and G-rated). In a book, I think that when you read about a character that uses these words, the author is trying to paint a perfect picture for you of the character's behavior and attitude. If they were to censor or change the speech, you wouldn't feel the same effect, and the message might not get across to you the way the author wanted it to.

    Since reading isn't something you hear or see (the imaginative plus to reading), the bad words are just another way of voicing emotions in a book. On TV or in songs, their tones and gestures do this for them!

    By Blogger KylieYoum, at 3:11 PM  

  • Responding to number 3:
    I think that books are different because the author doesnt put things in the book that are unnecessary to the story. So there isn't a way to really censor books because they end up confusing the reader. If they took out a part of the book no one would understand what was happening in the story. If the text is going to be censored then the book might as well be banned because I would be confused without parts of the story.

    By Blogger kkanski, at 3:37 PM  

  • In response to the second question:
    No it won't. People will want to read them more. It is the nature of human beings to disobey rules and challenge the system. People want to see wht is so bad about what was banned or prohibited and form their own opinion about it.

    By Blogger Barry Tischler, at 3:42 PM  

  • Responding to #3~ I think that censorship in books is different from censorship of song lyrics or TV shows because most times the language or content used in books sets the mood of the book. If TV shows or lyrics are censored, it is probably because of language and content. I agree with kylieyoum. Do you really need these things in shows and music to being with? What's the point? In lyrics, the whole song is based on the mood portrayed through the lyrics, so if the song is about something horrible and the entire song has lyrics to that effect, why put the f-bomb or such in if the feeling is already conveyed? Also, in TV shows the actors have their lines and acting skills that usually convey the point of the show. If two actors, one is mediocre and the other is a really good actor, drop the f-bomb, the better actor will still get the point across even if he hadn't said that word. Actors do not need horrendous language to get their point across, because if that were true, then anybody could be a good actor.
    Censorship of books is different because all the books have to portray the mood are words.

    By Blogger Julia B, at 3:59 PM  

  • #2
    I dont think that banning a book will keep people from reading it. I think that it will reduce the number of people that do read it, but not completely prevent people. If a person thinks they will be offended by what it says, based on why it is banned, then they wont read it. On the other hand, if they could care less, then they could choose to read the book if it sounded interesting.

    By Blogger NatalieJ, at 4:11 PM  

  • Responding to Question #1...

    A quick question: by this, do you mean books mentioning others making bombs or do you mean instructions on how to make a bomb? Or neither?

    If you mean books about others making bombs, I think that's ok. We need to know about what's happening and what has happened in our world concerning such military devices. North Korea recently tested a nuclear bomb, and I for sure wanted to know THAT! It's so scary! Also, we should be able read about what has happened in the past, like the bombing of Japan, and learn about how devastating it was. Should we enter a war with North Korea, we need to remember how absolutely devastating and destructive the bomb we used on Japan was and consider that before entering a nuclear war (not that we will, but just as an example...)We should learn from the past.

    If they are books that are basically instructions on how to make a bomb OF COURSE they should most CERTAINLY NOT be in a school library...actually, for that matter, they shouldn't be in any public library AT ALL! No one, especially HSchoolers, should be able to read up on how to make a bomb. Normal everyday people have no good reason to either own or use one unless it's for murder or revenge or something unpleasant like that. Only the US gov't and military should have access to THAT kind of information because they are the ones involved in foreign affairs.

    By Blogger Alison B, at 4:14 PM  

  • For the first question, I think that books that contain information on how to make bombs should definitely be banned from public schools. I was very surprised to hear that such a thing was even happening. (shows how much i go to the school library...hahaha:)) Some high school teens definitely have messed up minds (for example, the Columbine kids that killed and terrorized the other students a few years ago). To think that they have easy access to directions on how to make bombs is definitely a scary thought.

    In response to the second question:

    I think that by banning books, it will not keep people from reading them because banning books is so generic. There have been so many books that have been banned, that it is quite common for a book to be banned. It is hard to tell the difference between books that really should be banned, and books that a few people out in the middle of nowhere thought should be banned because they had nothing better to do. People obviously are not stopped from reading banned books because banning books is so common.

    By Blogger melissaq, at 4:20 PM  

  • In response to the second question I think that it is probably not a great idea to be telling us how to make bombs, censoring it wouldn't get alot done. what is to stop this person from finding the exact same book in digital form on the internet. So more and more censoring books has become less practical and more for show. Still, it does make the bomb makers quest less easy, so it should still be banned. Unless you are in a place like China where the internet is controlled by the government then you cannot ban a book a expect it to instantly become inacsesable. It just doesn't work when most every book in the civilized world is also on the internet. But certantly, ban it from our library.

    By Blogger Sander K., at 4:23 PM  

  • Sorry, I meant the first question not the second question.

    By Blogger Sander K., at 4:25 PM  

  • Hahaha, darn, other people got here before me! Well, hello everyone. I'm chosing to respond to the post about whether people will read books even if they are banned. I believe that the response to this question all depends on perspective.

    In America, for example, you can read whatever you please. Heck, if you feel like it, you can walk around reading romance novels until hearts come out of your ears, or learn to make bombs from another book! But in places where the governments are...well, I guess the nicest way to phrase it is "a little stricter"...the price you'd pay may not be worth the book. If someone could kill you on sight if they saw you reading How To Ride A Bike, it is pretty likely that only very brave or very stupid people will be caught reading it.

    Another look at different perspectives of banned books is this: how much do you honestly care about what you are about to read? If your belief is strong enough, by golly, you are GOING to read How To Ride A Bike even if it does get you killed! This example is espically clear when it pertains to religious books, such as the Bible. But if the book strikes you as disturbing, digusting, worrisome, or just not worth your time, it isn't going to bother you so much that it is banned.

    Thanks for reading my post, pals! See you all tommorrow!

    By Blogger CMeghan, at 4:31 PM  

  • I think banning books increases the want to read them. You know when there's something that's out of bounds, you have a strange attraction to whatever is out of bounds. Making reference to Harry Potter (because I LOVE those books), when the Quibbler is banned at Hogwarts, more people began to read the unpopular magazine just because it was banned. They would have never picked it up in the first place.

    By Blogger RachelL, at 4:32 PM  

  • Responding to question 2:
    I think that if books are banned people will want to read them more. I know for me personally I would go against the ban and try to read the books because many classics have been banned that are very good and inspiring books. I would also want to know why the books were banned, because many of these books have been banned because for really stupid or ridiculous reasons.

    But for many people, this ban might frighten them or they might support the ban and will follow it to save their own skin. But many bans in the past have been known to be rebelled against and it has led to good and bad events.

    I also agree with julia b on question 3.

    By Blogger clewis, at 5:16 PM  

  • I will be responding to the second question.

    I think that if a book was banned, then the number of people who read that book might go down as well. If the book was not very well known, and would only have a very small fan base, then I think that the number of people who read the book would significantly drop. This wouls be because that book would not be there for someone to pick up and decide to read. They would have to go out of their way to fing the book to be able to read it, if it was around any where. Some books that are well known, but become banned, might have a drop in the number of people who read them. This might be because people do not particularly car for the book, therefore they would not mind the less then immediant avability of it.

    Although, a banned book might spark an interest into the book itself and create more readers. If there was controversey, or a lot of hype about why a book was banned or what the particular book was about, then I feel that more people might read the book, if only to see what the big deal was about. Also, the number of readers could increase if reading a banned book, or banned books suddenly became the cool thing, the "in" thing to do. The, people would want to read the books, which would not be a bad thing, if only to fit in with the crowd that is rebelling from the system. If the people thought that a banned book should not be banned, they could also come together and try to fight the system to get the book un-banned.

    I think that what ever the results of the readers would have to play into the trends and popular beliefs at the time. Lets say that a whole society did not fight the system and read benned books, then it would be very hard for an individual to fight the system and fight the people to read the books, although it could be done. Also, if a society was very much involved with reeading books, then when one was banned the people might care, because they were brought up to read and respect books.

    By Blogger alysew, at 5:19 PM  

  • I chose the second question. I don't htink that banning books will make people stop reading them. SOme people will actually decied to read the book because it was banned because they want to see for themselves if they think that it actually should have been banned or if it was a stupid idea to bann that particular book. Also some people do things just because it is not allowed. I know that when there is a button that says do not touch it makes you actually want to touch it. If there is a law saying you can not read a certain book then it will make you want to read that book even more. just to see what actually happens.

    By Blogger tneal8, at 5:25 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger tneal8, at 5:26 PM  

  • In response to question number two, I think that banning a book will not stop people from reading it. If anything, it will make the reader more curious and interested in the book that is supposedly so "bad." This idea of knowingly doing something against the rules is just too appealing to people for them to pass up the chance to challenge the system. I agree with Damian when he says that banning a book is like "an invitation to read it." Although I think that some books can be inappropriate for certain age groups, I also think that banning a book solves nothing because it suddenly draws all kinds of attention to a "bad" or "inappropriate" book that most people never would have considered reading in the first place.

    By Blogger Rachel K, at 5:32 PM  

  • Responding to question #2

    I think that banning a book will actually attract more readers than it normally would. If you ban a book, many people will want to read it just to see what the fuss was about, rather than reading it because they have a genuine interest in it. If the book isn't banned, then most people won't care much about it. A good example of this can be found in our classes (1st block in particular) When students heard about how the Bluest Dye was banned last year at Arapahoe, many of them wanted to read it for their banned book before they even knew what it was about. So if a government bans a book nationwide, it will surely attract lots of readers.

    By Blogger Kristen F., at 5:43 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Annika E, at 5:44 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger jcard, at 5:59 PM  

  • Question 2

    I don't think that banning books keeps people from reading them. There are so many great books that have been banned for stupid reasons like talking animals in Alice in Wonderland. But, like Alice in Wonderland, many of the books are classics. So a book banning won't discourage people from reading them. Also, at least for me, banning a book makes me want to read it more as opposed to if it wasn't banned. If I see a book and learn that it's banned, I want to read it because I want to find out why it was banned. It's kind of a way to fight the system without doing something totally outrageous.

    By Blogger haleycc, at 5:59 PM  

  • I chose to answer the question: Will banning books stop people from reading them? The answer to this is no. This is because by banning a book, it sparks interest in the public's mind. By making it a banned book, curiosity takes over and makes many people want to see why it is banned. Anyways, if it is banned, people are still going to read it because they can choose what books they want to read and when they want to read them. I think by making a book banned, people will just want to read it more.

    By Blogger jcard, at 6:01 PM  

  • Response to Question #2:
    I truly don't believe that just since a book is banned people won't read it. Throughout history there has been time after time when people "challenge the system" and do exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing. If someone wants to read a book, they'll read that book regardless of whether or not it is banned. Though banning a book may cause a person to doubt whther or not they should read the book, if they really want to read the book, they will read it.

    By Blogger Whitney*P, at 6:31 PM  

  • I am responding to question number two. I do not think that by banning a book that people will stop reading that book. It makes people want to read the book more because of pure curiosity of why the book was banned. They might also read the book is because the want to challenge the system. It is perfectly O.K too that they would want to read the book because it is legal even if that book is banned. Humans are very curious and will find out things for ourselves even if we are told not to. So I think that even if a book is banned, it will not stop a person from reading it.

    By Blogger Kayla F, at 6:39 PM  

  • In response to #2...
    Banning books will not keep people from reading them. In fact, probably quite the opposite. As humans, we naturally feel a need to do the thing we are not supposed to. Take toddlers. If you specifically tell them not to touch something, you can be 99% sure they're going to turn around and touch it.
    Kristen brought up the example of the Bluest Dye being banned at AHS and consequently students wanting to read it. Our past history has proven this also. Take the American Prohibition in the 1920s. Alcohol was banned in the US thinking that there level of consumption would drop. Ironically, during it's banned period, more alcohol was consumed than ever before in the US.
    Banning books is in essence putting a huge neon sign on the individual book saying READ ME.

    By Blogger Martha P., at 6:46 PM  

  • Responding to Q. 2:
    I agree with many of my classmates on this topic. If we ban a particular book, then obviously people will be more interested in reading it! Like, for example, when you mentioned in class that Arapahoe had banned the book "The Bluest Eye," I immediately wanted to read it to see why it was banned. When we bring attention to a book that is innapropriate and tell a high school full of teenagers, ten their curiosity will bring them to that book by any way possible. If we hadn't have banned the book, then most of the teenagers would have never heard of it, and would not have wanted to read it. And also, on this topic, almost every book ever written has been banned somewhere sometime, so the odds are that most people who regularly read have read a banned book.

    By Blogger ShannonH, at 6:57 PM  

  • Response to Question 2

    Banning books doesn't really keep people from reading them. If anything, I think this makes people want to read them even more. When people are told not to do something, it appeals to them even more. Banning books just means that they can't be taught in school or something along those lines because some parent thinks their kids aren't mature enough to read that material so they want to penalize everyone else for it. Banning books is just another way people try to ruin everything. They are trying to get rid of more than half of the American classics which everyone should read. People will also read banned books because they either want to "defy the system," or because they just want to see what the book is about, and if it is legitably banned.


    By Blogger , at 7:11 PM  

  • Responding to Q #2

    It's human nature to be curious about what a "banned" book is.

    Not only would it not stop people from reading the books, it would increase their curiosity and desire for learning. Banning books would have the opposite effect intended.

    By Blogger RachelP, at 7:17 PM  

  • In response to the second question, i believe that nothing spurrs someone to do something than saying it is against the rules. Banning a book would simply make it more compelling to read. you would get more enjoyment out of it because the fact that it is something that you shouldn't know. For example, when alcohol was banned it became and underground activity and was done more and more.

    By Blogger Dan E, at 7:17 PM  

  • 1. Is it okay to have books on making bombs in the school library?

    I think that just as whoever writes a book on making bombs should have total authorization, so should one who reads it. I believe the library should have it in a place that nobody but an authorized teacher or librarian should be able to reach it. A book on making bombs could be useful in learning purposes, and yes a student should be able to access it, but if they did they should have a reason for it other than "I'm just curious." The book shouldn't leave the library, and the student using the book should be supervised by an authorized teacher or librarian at all times of use.

    By Blogger JordanK, at 7:43 PM  

  • In resopnse to the third question, I think that books are different, because of the issue of responsibility. The difference is the third party that is involved in tv. With tv shows, the station most ofetn choses to censor somethig that a third party said, such as someone who is being interviewed, but the station would be responsible for if it were aired. With books, there are only two parties involved- the author and the reader. Therefore, the author can freely express what they want to say, if they accecpt the risks and resopnsibilities of this freedom. These responsibilities were recently displayed a year ago when a Polish newspaper printed comics that wer ofensive to the Muslim faith. both the newspaper and artist of the comics were targeted by Muslims because of what was printed

    By Blogger matt f., at 7:46 PM  

  • I think that it is all right for librarys to have books that have instructions to make bombs; libraries just need to keep a record of who is checking out these books adn they need to monitor suspicious behaviors. The book could just be an educational book that is maybe explains how the bomb squad carries out their tasks. there are books that have held content about realted amtters and if someone used this information, then the book was taken off of the shelves. If someone wants to write something like that, let them. If you don't, you are just violating the Constitution. This blog does not mean that I am agreeing with the behavior of building and detonating bombs, I just agree that if someone has something to say or write, let them do it.

    By Blogger tchilton, at 7:48 PM  

  • I am going to be a bit repetitive(sorry) in answering the second question but I do believe that banning a book will make people want to read it more because they are curious about what might be so dangerous and bad to read. It just seems as though it is human nature to want to posses a sense of power by doing something they aren't supposed to, therefore showing the authorities that they cannot be controlled.
    Another connection that can be made back to this subject is that people kind of take delight in watching or hearing about gory things-- particularily juicy bits of gossip, violence in movies, even ancient Romans watching men getting torn apart by hungry lions. It is gross, but I think people are curious and for some reason they want to see some really disgusting and also forbidden stuff.

    By Blogger Tina L, at 7:58 PM  

  • Question #2
    Banning books is not going to keep the majority of people from reading them. There are a lot of people who like to chalange the system, and would read banned books for multiple reasons. These include: They want to see for themselves if they think the book should be banned, they they think it's coll breaking rules, and they don't care about graphic content, and want to read the book for pleasure or something. Personally, I think it's fun to break the ocasional rule and chalenge the system.

    By Blogger goodriddance, at 7:58 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger goodriddance, at 7:58 PM  

  • Question #2:
    I think that if a book if banned, then people are going to want to read it more. It's like telling a kid that they can't go to a certain place, it just makes them want to go there even more. I think that people belive it is more fun to do something if it isnt allowed, therefore I think people would/will still read banned books.

    By Blogger Sarah E., at 8:26 PM  

  • Responding to Questions 2:
    No, I don't think that banning books will keep people from reading them. For one obvious example, the books WE are reading are banned and that is not stopping us. I think that telling somebody not to do something or read something makes them want to experiance it more because they know that they shouldn't. Once it has aesthetic the book seems more appealing. There would never be a way to make sure that nobody reads banned books because there is no way to make sure everyone obeys the law. Banning a book could be interpreted that is like a band-aid solution and makes the people who are offended feel better but it doesn't actually do a lot to keep people from reading.

    By Blogger Sally Van Denover, at 8:29 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Annika E, at 8:34 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Annika E, at 8:41 PM  

  • The first question poses a bit of a dilemma for me. For issues of safety, of course a book with that content shouldn't be in the library. If you care more about rights, then it should be. I think that a book like that should be in the library, and that society just has to trust teenagers more. Sure, there have been awful events carried out by students, but not every student is going to do that. Also, I was wondering if anybody knew: Are these books allowed in public libraries?

    In quick response to AlisonB: should the military even have instructions for making bombs? Should anyone in the world really have these instructions? What if no one knew how to make a bomb?

    i just wanted to say that i dont support what might be in the books, but that i just believe books should be available no matter what.

    By Blogger Annika E, at 8:45 PM  

  • I believe that banning books would make people want to read them all the more. but with censorship laws you would not ever be able to by a new book. so... it would make people want to read more, but i think people would get kind of sick reading the same book over and over again! so people might stop reading because there would be nothing to look forward to in books because none of them would be new. you would know the ending and i really cant read a book if i know whats going to happen.

    By Blogger sean b, at 8:57 PM  

  • For the question about whether or not books on making bombs should be allowed in school libraries, I think that they should not be allowed. It would not be okay for a school to provide information for such a horrible deed because that'd be handing over information for some kid whos has the dangerous idea of creating a bomb to hurt himself or herself, others, or both. If that individual chooses to make a bomb that is their choice but because it is such a terrifying act to create and use a bomb, it would be wrong for a system that opposes bomb usage to help provide instructions for the bomb's creatin. Unless the books are on how to stop the creation of bombs and not instructions or those that would give hints on the process of making a bomb then it would be alright. but it'd be better if the school never had books about bombs in the first place.

    By Blogger Chelley D, at 9:02 PM  

  • 2. No, were reading them in Mrs. Moritz's class aren't we? If people realy want to read a book they will just find an old copy or somthing. Commonly people do thing just to challenge the system so if they saw it was banned thet might read it just to see why they shouldn't.

    By Blogger Laine G, at 9:45 PM  

  • (emily h., 6th period responding to #2)
    I absolutley don't think that banning books keep people from reading them. I think that more than anything, it will cause people to read that book more. I think that the temptation to do something that is banned or against the rules makes it more exciting for a lot of people. For instance, people like the feeling that they get when they realize that they have done something that they shouldn't have and gotten away with it. Also, the rules on banned books are not enforced. Sure, in some classes, you are not allowed to read a certain book as a part of the class. However, the teacher of that class could suggest that it be an outside reading book and still discuss it in class. I don't know of any "banned book officers" that come around to schools just checking to see whether or not the students are reading those books. Another point is that a lot of books are banned in just one part of a country or state. This means that is anyone in a state that has a book that has been banned could technically go to another state and read the same book as part of a project. In answer to the question, no, banning books does not keep people from reading them.

    By Blogger emilyh, at 10:23 PM  

  • Responding to question #2: 1st period english honors
    It is my opinion that banning books most certainly will not prevent people from reading them. Those who are truly dedicated to books would most likely come to appreciate and cherish their contents even more so. Furthermore, I believe a ban would promote some people to disobey the law just for the thrill of rebellion. As we discussed in class earlier this week, people are constantly challenging various present day systems. In relation, banning books would only provide an institution that may be challenged by the people. It is these types of people that invent revolutionary objects, introduce new ideas or beliefs, and generally change society. I must question myself, however, on the point that those who challenge the sytem are the people that shape the future. Are the actions of such challengers justified based on the effects they have on the future? For example, if someone banned books within the state, and then caused a widespread mutiny that hurt the economy, would this ban still be justified as it had when the ban was approved?
    To sum up my answer, no banning books would ultimately not stop people from reading them.

    By Blogger kchurchill, at 10:49 PM  

  • I chose the second question and I think that banning a book would not stop people from aquiring and reading it. If anything, I think it would make the book more desireable to have, just so that the questioner could find out the reason the book was banned and put in their own openion on whether or not it should be banned. *CONNECTION* In Harry Potter 5, Pr. Umbridge (sp) banned an issue of the Quibbler (sp) and when this ban had been posted, the students were interested enough to find copies of the magazine, discuise them and read them before the end of the day was over. Truthfully, I do not think that the people who would follow the rules and be good citizens would overpower those who don't. It is a natural instinct for human kind to resist what is forced upon them. In the end, the banned book would end up being read more if it was banned than if it was not.

    By Blogger Emma Grace, at 5:52 AM  

  • I don't think banning a book will keep people from reading it. I think it will almost make people want to read it more.It almost connects to challenging the system that we talked about in class! I think people will see why it is banned and see if they agree with the reason it was banned before they choose to read it or not to read it. Parents may not allow their children to read certain books though if they have been banned. I think overall though that it will not keep people from readig a certain book.

    By Blogger Blair L, at 6:05 AM  

  • I chose the second question. I believe that banning books will definitely not keep people from reading them. Banning books is kind of like a rule saying that you shouldn't read them because there is something about them that makes them innappropriate in some way or another. I believe in the old saying, "rules are made to be broken" and that is exactly what people are going to do. Banned books are going to be the books that people will want to read the most, because they feel like they are testing the law and feels good to them.

    By Blogger erikaw, at 1:47 PM  

  • Question #3-
    People may censor TV and songs because they are used more by younger children, and profanities are not going to be in their books, so they dont need to be censored. On the other hand, some shows, may be censored but are still inappropriate for younger viewers. Books, although they are not much different than TV, books were not censored when they were made before so maybe that is why they are not censored today.

    By Blogger Liz, at 2:12 PM  

  • 2. I think that banning books is pretty much pointless if the point is trying to stop people from reading them. Actually, I think that this makes people want to read the book more, to find out why it was banned. I mean, what are we doing in this class right now? Having a banned book fair where we are encouraged to read these books. I think as long as it is legal, and the book is fairly accessable, people will read it if they want to.

    By Blogger kmatthews, at 9:06 PM  

  • Question #2
    I think that if a person is deprived of anything, they are going to want it more than they did when it was "free" to have. If a kid is given a large bowl of candy and is free to take a piece whenever he wants, then after a while it would get boring and he will lose intrest. Then if the bowl is taken away it brings atention back to the bowl and he will feel deprived and take a ton any chance he get to have some. This would also apply with a book instead of candy and an adult/teen instead of a kid. So in other world if a book was banned then people would want to read it more then if they could read it freely.

    By Blogger Erik, at 6:55 PM  

  • i chose to answer question two. If books are censored it will make people even more curious about them. They will wonder why they were censored and they will want to read them to find out. Some classes such as ours also might read them for the class to see why they were banned.

    By Blogger hmadsen, at 7:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home