In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Love Crime/Hate Crime: Banning Baby Be-Bop

[Ginny Maziarka] cautioned that her group would let people know that the library was not a safe place unless it segregated and labeled YA titles with explicit content.

I’ve always thought of the public library as being a safe place. Part of it is just the way I’ve always romanticized books in my head, but there’s also always been the liberating feeling that I am free from all judgment as to what I read and check out. I know this might not be everyone’s experience with the libraries in their area, but in my mind, the ideal public library would make media available, not tell people which media is culturally appropriate. Particularly with the price of books and database subscriptions being so high, it seems incredibly important to have a place where reading and information are free. If some materials do not meet people’s standards, well, even terrible trash can spawn valuable discussion. And sometimes I think all of us, regardless of our views, would benefit from at least reading the other side of the story (agreeing is a different matter.)

So when my friend, who’s working toward her MA in library science, sent me this article, it gave me a lot to think about. Here’s the long and short of it: After the West Bend Community Memorial Library in Wisconsin included Francesca Lia Block’s Baby Be-Bop (link goes to Powell’s) in a library display, several groups of locals were outraged, and the book found itself the target of blistering hate. City residents Ginny and Jim Maziarka demanded that the library segregate “sexually-explicit.” Another local filed a suit with the Christian Civil Liberties Union, asking for $120,000 in damages (seeing the book apparently damaged them emotionally,) and the resignation of the West Bend Mayor.

From a certain standpoint, this is nothing new–I mean, it’s old for reasons aside from the fact that the ALA article came out in June. Of course, books, particularly books for children and adolescents, face antagonism all the time. From Harry Potter to In the Night Kitchen (yes, the Sendak one,) people can come up with infinite reasons as to why a book is obscene. Nevertheless, the hatred this book in particular has aroused terrifies me:

…[T]he complaint by Braun, Joseph Kogelmann, Rev. Cleveland Eden, and Robert Brough explains that “the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”

[T]he plaintiffs also request West Bend City Attorney Mary Schanning to impanel a grand jury to examine whether the book should be declared obscene and making it available a hate crime.”

Other bloggers have talked about the sudden outrage over this book, but many of them hadn’t read it.  I had: I discovered it back in Jr. High, and read it over and over. I remember lying on the couch in the living room, sick with some sort of bug, re-reading it all in one sitting (Admittedly, this was not a huge feat—it’s only about 100 pages.). Over the years, I had forgotten about it; I had left it behind with most of my other Jr. High favorites, but it never left me.

So when I heard about the hubbub, my first reaction was: “Why now? [the book came out in 1995.] And why that one and not every other book Block has written?” (Of the books of hers that I’ve read, the majority I can think of at least contain gay or bisexual characters.) The more I thought about it, the more I wanted to re-read it. So I did. Re-reading it, I discovered two secrets: 1. Why the homosexuality was considered so much worse in that than any of her others and 2. Why it had been so important to me as an adolescent.

Now, as I said before, I don’t think it’s the library’s place to judge or pry.  When it comes to the issue of book banning, particularly where libraries are concerned, I find content irrelevant. Still, in this case, Baby Be-Bop is such an interesting work that I feel it’s worth assessing what about it could cause such anger, and why I feel it needs our protection. I should note that follows will, eventually, contain what are technically spoilers. I do not believe that they actually spoil the book because it’s more about emotions than plot; the beauty is in the details.

Set in the early ‘90s, Baby Be-Bop is the story of a young man named Dirk McDonald, who lives in a beautiful cottage outside of Los Angeles, CA, with his grandmother Fifi. He has always known that he was gay and wishes he didn’t feel he had to hide it. He wants to be strong and unafraid. When he is attacked at a punk club (ostensibly for insulting a man’s swastika tattoo, but it soon turns into a gay bashing,) he almost gives up hope until he is visited by the spirits of his great grandmother and his father, both of whom had passed on before he was born. They tell him their stories about how they grew up and fell in love. Although they both were heterosexual, they assert that they see no difference between their loves and Dirk’s. As his great-grandmother says without pause or hesitation, “Any love that is love is right” (66).

I also think it’s important to understanding the outrage that this book inspires to keep in mind that by love, Block means sex as well. In Block’s fairy tale, masturbation, fantasy, and sex are just as natural and beautiful as “spiritual love.”

I wish I felt like there was more to analyze here, but I’m afraid that this is the whole dark secret of the book. There is violence, but it is never glorified. There is hate speech, but only from the mouths of despicable individuals. Some of the characters smoke, but I don’t think that’s what’s triggering people. On the whole, it is a book that says, “It’s okay to love how you love,” and I think that scares people.

Far from being damaging, Baby Be-Bop is a healing, empowering story. It encourages teens to speak up and tell their stories where they have felt silenced. It encourages teens not to be afraid of their sexual sides. I think that’s why I read it as a teen. Though my parents were as encouraging as Block, my school was run by a rather conservative religious group (despite the school being a secular school,) and their messages sometimes leaked past the positive ones I got. Although I was pretty sure that I was heterosexual, it just felt so good to hear someone else say that my body wasn’t dirty. I don’t want to pretend that this book single-handedly saved me, but I consider it part of the remedy. I like to think it’s helped other teens of all sexualities and genders in that way too.

Of course, the book has its problematic moments; in particular, I’ve never been comfortable with Block’s tendency to use LA’s minority populations to help exoticize the city and enhance the fairy-tale atmosphere of her stories. There’s a lot to talk about in that aspect of Block’s work in general; Said would have a field day with her bohemian love of “the East.” Sadly, I do not think these were the racial problems the plaintiffs in this case were concerned about (not that I would advocate banning the book over them.).

Nevertheless, on the whole, if sharing Baby Be-Bop is obscene, then I will gladly be obscene. If encouraging love is damaging, then I will damage. And I will do all I can to support libraries so that any teen who has been taught that ze is dirty and wrong will check out this book and others like it and begin to feel clean.

(Cross-posted to From the Cracked Mirror)


26 thoughts on Love Crime/Hate Crime: Banning <i>Baby Be-Bop</i>

  1. Book banning is always an irksome subject with me, but when I got sent that article, it made me furious. The Weetzie Bat books and most of the other books that Francesca Lia Block has written made a huge, huge positive impact on my life growing up. They got me into music, zine making, saying positive things to other people, expressing myself, seeing magic in everyday life, and being comfortable in my own identity.

    I’m confused as to how a book can put anyone’s “life in danger” unless it’s a rather heavy hardcover book that’s thrown at someone’s head. Also, there’s a lot more plentiful and graphic sexual content in prime time network television than in any FBL novel (except maybe her erotica, which, erm, is kind of the point of erotica). This blown out of proportion response is homophobia, no doubt in my mind.

  2. Let me get this straight: people want to make owning a book about accepting different sexualities a hate crime?

    And they don’t see the, um, backwardness of this?

  3. No, they don’t.

    That book sounds antiauthortarian in the way that drives a certain set of people crazy. It disconnects pleasure from the potential of external sanctions and promotes that the people who matters to you and cares about you would not abandon you for being who you are. Mutual insecurity and hypocrisy is a key social mechanism for many groups. Works that invalidates that makes people go all American Beauty at the end. To be left without any structure but the gamble of love is both frightening and enraging.

  4. It’s funny, I really dislike Francesca Lia Block’s work now, but the things I dislike about it now are the very things that made her books so appealing when I was a young teenager. There are lots of things that are problematic about her books: the fetishization of people of color, the glorification and glamorization of self-destructive behavior (drugs, eating disorders, general angst/depression), that nearly all her main characters are beautiful, skinny, sad white girls…

    and yet. Those books totally spoke to me when I was an angsty, self-destructive teenager. They reinforced some messages that were not so great, but they were also an outlet and images I could relate to, at least a little bit. And her books were some of the first that I read that had queer characters, and were relatively sex-positive (even though some sex happened in shady circumstances), which was huge.

    Which is to say: even though I’m pretty critical of FLB’s work, there’s still no good reason to ban it.

  5. Amapola- I agree with you completely; my experience with Block’s books was really similar. Thinking back, there are a lot of things about her work that I really dislike (those that you listed being first and foremost. I also often feel that the queer characters in her novels are treated as the side-kicks to the skinny, sad white girls–particularly in Weetzie Bat.). There’s still something about this one that I really like though, even if it has many of the same problems; though part of that may just be that it was always my favorite of her work, and the only one that really stayed with me.

    But as we both have said, discussion of the real issues in her works is completely different from banning them or declaring distribution of them to be a hate crime.

  6. It’s always bizarre to me how people can’t see past the surface of books and equate racist or homophobic slurs with a racist or homophobic book.

    For instance, Huck Finn getting banned so much more often than Heart of Darkness, because the latter is narrated and written from the point of view that black people are scarcely better than animals, but the former uses “n—–“! The horror!

  7. I’ve had a very similar experience with Block’s writing, Steph and Amapola. I was passionately into many of all of Francesca Lia Block’s writing when I was a teenager, but looking back I have many of the same problems with her books.

    But this is just ridiculous. Those people aren’t demanding that Baby Be-bop is banned because of a few racial slurs, which are uttered by negative characters anyway. They want to label it obscene because of the acceptance and celebration of non-hetero sex and love in the book. They are comfortable in their heteronormative, black-and-white, moral-and-immoral world and they don’t want it changed. Even though it’s never been that way, no matter how much our society in general and the far-right in particular try.

    I am very anti-banning any work of art, unless it explicitly endorses hateful acts and/or violence toward a certain group of people. Just because I hate Pat Robertson’s political and social views with a passion doesn’t mean I think his books should be banned.

  8. these Right Wing Christian Fascists want to be compensated for their suffering because of this book???

    Ok then, i think i am gonna file a lawsuit the next time i have to deal with some pushy, preachy Christian Fascist trying to shove his/her religion down my throat!!!!!

    i myself am a librarian, and crap like this makes me happy i work in a University library instead of a public library. It seems the public libraries have to deal with the wannabe book burners more than academic libraries.

  9. haha wow, there’s a Christian Civil Liberties Union? That’s hilarious.

    At first I thought it was really serious, but then I googled it and found out that this is really the only ‘issue’ they’re involved in.

  10. Tempting to head down to their church and be shocked, *shocked* at the atrocities found in the Old Testament. Murder? Yep. Rape? Sure. Incest? You bet! Homosexuality? Natch! Ought to be worth $30,000 easy, plus a public conflagration or two.

  11. The claims are almost a parody. They want a court order letting them burn the book. They want the mayor fired. They want $120k for the pain of having seen the book in the library. They claim that this book can cause death. DEATH! I’m sorry, but if a book kills you, you’re doing it severely wrong.

  12. If they truly suffer because this book exists, then they are in desperate need of psychological counseling and/or medication. Otherwise, they are perfectly free not to read it.

  13. I’m a pre-library school student, and the attempt to ban books will probably never go away, and banners have always used scary tactics. For instance, Nancy Garden’s Annie on My Mind was burned in Kansas in 1993. She actually wrote a book about the experience of books being banned in The Year They Burned the Books.

  14. Looks like someone needs a gentle reminder that the constitution, in general, and the first amendment, in specific, is neither a privilege nor a negotiation with social norms; it is a demand and a threat backed with a loaded gun. I hesitate to use a word like “un-American,” but banning books sure as hell fits the bill.

  15. According to a CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/wisconsin.book.row/index.html), some people are upset because “All the books in the young-adult zone that deal with homosexuality are gay-affirming.” Apparently, the library is supposed to include overtly anti-gay books too. You know, to be balanced. Maybe we can toss in some titles that show how women belong at home and minorities aren’t quite as good as white people. Except the library probably already has plenty of those.

    Library school is really kicking my ass right now, but it’s moments like these that make it worth it. I’m looking forward to laying some smack down on ignorant bigots when they challenge books in my library.

  16. I am teen services librarian in a small(-minded), midwestern town. I do collection development, and I have been told in the past that if my superiors think my selections are “too mature”, meaning they affirm the humanity of all people, I do not have final say over whether we keep the book because I am not a parent. By the way, I have a valid teaching license and education experience.

    This makes me sick and sad. Here’s an idea parents: take an active role in what your children read.

  17. I’m of the sort that thinks kids should be able to read whatever they want, regardless of the content. Reading is a skill, and reading well is a very well-valued skill. Kids won’t read if the content doesn’t interest them or doesn’t apply to their lives, and if whatever book is appropriate for their reading level they will form an opinion on the content, good or bad.

    The fear, I think, is that books like this that condone positive outlooks on supposedly controversial subjects (and the controversy escapes me) that condone the acceptance of a wide array of humanity, and moreover, that the structure of a book and the psychology of reading makes the reader more susceptible to identifying with the characters in it. This is a good thing!

    On a side note, I was reading Stephen King and Harlequin romances long before I hit puberty and I think I turned out all right — not that they’re the most progressive things, sure, but not what most would consider age appropriate. I do remember once placing a bookmark in an S.E. Hinton book to ask my mom what “horny” meant and having the book taken away from me…

  18. On a side note, I was reading Stephen King and Harlequin romances long before I hit puberty and I think I turned out all right — not that they’re the most progressive things, sure, but not what most would consider age appropriate.

    Thats dangerous logic there, Lauren. I was reading Clive Barker at that age, which soon lead to Lovecraft. Before long I was reading Foucualt and now I just don’t know whats true anymore…

    Questionable books, like marijuana and dancing, are a gateway to far worse things.

  19. I’m an academic librarian from Milwaukee, not too far from where this story is happening. As my brothers and sisters in bibliographic arms are on the case and as, by and large, the community is behind the idea of free access and free expression on the library shelves, I think it’s pretty safe to say that, although it is certainly something to furrow one’s brow over, no one is going to be pulling, much less burning any of Ms. Block’s lovely books.

    While I’m glad to see that there are so many members of the general public out there who pay attention to what goes on in libraries, it worries me that it’s stories like these that draw the attention of the reading public and not the ongoing, more worrying story of the budget cuts that are hitting libraries all over the United States. Case in point – while local and national attention is focused 40 miles to the north, the real story is happening in Milwaukee, where a massive overhaul of the infrastructure of our public library system is placing free and easy public access to materials selected, maintained, and safeguarded by professionals at very real risk.

    I encourage all people who were struck by the story of what’s going on in West Bend to take a closer look at the fiscal realities facing their own public libraries and to realize that cutting library hours and closing branches is more unfortunate and damaging to free access to information than threatening to burn a single book could ever be.

  20. To those of you laughing about the idea of the book hurting people- While I, too, doubt this book’s ability to hurt people, I’m uncomfortable with ridiculing the ability of stories to have a profound effect on people. After all, don’t we constantly point out advertisements, movies, and other bits of pop culture that cannot physically hurt anyone can cause mental/emotional damage? Don’t we often point out how hate speech from pundits can lead to murder? Now I wrote this post, and, clearly, I don’t think the book is dangerous, but reading a book can change you. The difference is that what they call damage, we call change.

    Lauren- That’s exactly how I was raised, too, and I think I’m doing just fine. 🙂

    Raina Bloom- Thanks for reminding us of the financial problems that libraries face and the bigger picture.

  21. The difference is that what they call damage, we call change.

    And I think that difference of opinion is worthy of ridicule. When little creatures like these stop hiding behind a book which advocates pretty much every horror imaginable in the name of goodness, then I’ll stop making fun of them for claiming that a book about positive outcomes for gay kids can be damaging. Until they, they will find neither sympathy nor respect from me.

    When I’m on the clock, I can muster up empathy and see things from a person’s unique frame. When I’m off the clock, and when the person I’m facing is trying to use the law as a cudgel to attack both free speech as a concept and the emotional well-being of gay kids then I really can’t be arsed to give two shits for their feelings or their dignity as human beings. If they want to respond with a critical evaluation, then I’ll respond with a reasoned critique of their ideas. If they instead respond with fascism I’ll respond with derision in public and making sure my guns are well-oiled if things go pear shaped.

  22. William- You misunderstood me: I’m not saying you can’t ridicule their fear of this particular book; I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of saying that books can’t hurt people or have a profound effect (aka- sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.). This particular book, at least when you look at its overarching message, isn’t harmful. That doesn’t mean it isn’t powerful.

  23. To those of you laughing about the idea of the book hurting people- While I, too, doubt this book’s ability to hurt people, I’m uncomfortable with ridiculing the ability of stories to have a profound effect on people.

    But the point is that the library — a public library, not a school library, which operates under different strictures — doesn’t have to bend to the fears of one citizen that the effect the book may have is one she doesn’t want it to have. Nor do they have to give this person the power to make decisions on behalf of other patrons or parents who want to read the book or let their children read the book by simply going along with her demand that it be taken off the shelves.

    The library has a procedure in place for challenging a book, which it followed. The problem is that the town denied reappointment to four of the trustees of the library because the library followed its own procedures and didn’t just immediately remove the book from the shelves (or whatever else she wanted them to do with it; it kept being changed) without reviewing the merits of the complaint.

    What this person is trying to do is, as I said, make decisions about what other people and other people’s children may read. But really, she has no right to be the first and last word on the matter, a right the town council seems to want to grant her by punishing the trustees who backed the librarians who were following the policy adopted by the trustees and ratified by the council. And the reason you have such policies is just so that people on the council can’t just let their fear of some loudmouth citizen who wants to complain about TEH GHEY and ZOMG THE CHILDREN lead them into censoring the contents of the PUBLIC library, paid for by all the taxpayers in town, not just the loudmouth and her friends (and it looks like those who are anticensorship have more friends than she does when it comes down to it, because they got 1000 signatures, and she only got 700).

    You also have those policies to force the complainers to substantiate their claims, because often they can’t even tell you what’s objectionable about the book in a concrete manner because they haven’t read it.

    You’re right that books have effects, but it’s not up to anyone to decide for me what I take away from reading a book, or whether I want to have my kid read it. If you don’t approve of a book for your child, the solution is to not let *your* kid read it, not to take the book away so I can’t have *my* kid read it.

  24. Zuzu, don’t worry–I wrote the post in the first place. I’m certainly not saying that just because the book can be powerful that anyone should have the ability to decide for anyone else. I just think that we can believe that or speak out against censorship without trivializing the book’s ability to have an effect on people. I actually want people to be able to read the book because it can have an effect on people. Believing that something can potentially be powerful is entirely different from believing it should be banned.

    They are saying that the book could hurt people. Their definition of “hurt people” is “cause people to accept that they are gay or not feel guilty about having sexual desires.” By making comments that pretend that they are talking about the book literally hurting someone, we’re ignoring the homophobia, and also the potential the book has to do good. I know this is just semantics, and I know that no one intended to ignore the homophobia, but it’s a pet peeve of mine when people revert back to “sticks and stones may break my bones… etc.” when we all know that’s not true (well, I guess the “sticks and stones” bit is. I’m talking about words.)

    Why is admitting that the words are powerful a concession to the people who would ban it? That book could help save a kid’s life if the right kid read it–that’s powerful stuff.

Comments are currently closed.