Words Under Siege: A look at Bizarre Literary Censorship

Books, like all great cultural artifacts, have the curious power to simultaneously illuminate the human condition and spark endless controversy. Historically, literature has always been one of society’s most effective ways to challenge norms, and perhaps that’s why it has such a knack for making people nervous. Certain books, it seems, are just too much - too influential, too rebellious, or perhaps too... colorful. The pages of literature have always been battlegrounds where society's anxieties, fears, and insecurities come to light.

Which brings us to the topic of banning books. Banning books has become something of a cultural ritual, a theater of the absurd seen through the looking glass where concerned citizens and committees try to decide what’s “appropriate” for the public to consume. Yet, in their quest to legislate morality, the reasons for banning often veer into the territory of the ridiculous. It’s not just steamy adult fiction or controversial political tracts that get the ax. Nope, sometimes it’s nothing more than a hero in his underwear or a spider who spells that suddenly raises the alarm.

So, we arrive at the question: why are certain books targeted for censorship? The explanations are often outlandish and sometimes even entertaining in their sheer creativity. With explanations ranging from the vaguely moral to the bafflingly ridiculous, these bans are a study in overreaction - perfect fodder for a closer look at just how bizarre literary censorship can get.

“What is freedom of expression?  Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”  Salman Rushdie

In The Beginning

Everything has to start somewhere and, as far as we could discover, the very first book to be “officially” banned was titled New English Canaan, by Thomas Morton in 1637.

It was a scathing critique of Puritan life that rubbed Massachusetts the wrong way. Morton, a spirited hedonist by Puritan standards, had already scandalized the colony by throwing May Day parties (dancing around a pole which was considered shockingly risque) and befriending Native Americans. The Puritans saw him not as a harmless eccentric but as a threat to their rigid worldview.

When New English Canaan hit the scene, it was the final straw. The book was banned as a full-frontal assault on Puritan values, and Morton himself was effectively blacklisted. Banished from Massachusetts, he remained unwelcome until his death in 1643 - leaving behind a legacy as the man who wrote the first officially banned book in America.

“I defend both the freedom of expression and society's right to counter it. I must pay the price for differing. It is the natural way of things.”  Naguib Mahfouz

James and the Giant Peach

James and the Giant Peach, by Roald Dahl, is a fantastical novel about a boy escaping his miserable life by entering a magical, house-sized peach with a group of insects and arachnids.

It took a hit in 1995, 30+ years after it was first published, when a school district in Wisconsin decided it was far too scandalous for young eyes. And the reason? Not the fantastical plot or its less-than-conventional parenting advice, but a spider - a spider licking her lips. Yes, an innocent moment of arachnid enthusiasm over a peach was deemed… too sexual.

To be clear, we’re talking about a giant talking spider here, not some slinky femme fatale out of a film noir. But apparently, one brief mention of her “licking her lips” was enough to set off alarm bells. Perhaps the censors envisioned legions of children becoming mesmerized, unable to see a spider without wondering what sultry thoughts lurked behind all eight of its eyes. Or maybe they feared Dahl’s quirky humor might somehow lure young readers down a path of moral decay, starting with anthropomorphic insects and ending who knows where.

And so, the book was banned, locked away from innocent Wisconsin. Instead of tackling the complex themes that Dahl so often explored - loneliness, courage, the importance of found family - the censors zeroed in on one line, imagining impropriety where there was none. And all because a spider dared to show a little too much enthusiasm for her lunch.

“A person is a fool to become a writer. His only compensation is absolute freedom.”  Roald Dahl

Little Red Riding Hood

Little Red Riding Hood has charmed children for generations with its simple, cautionary tale of a girl, a wolf, and a very unfortunate choice of shortcuts.

But in 1989, the Culver City Unified School District in California took issue - not for its moral ambiguity or the rather alarming ending in which grandma is swallowed whole, but for something far more scandalous: a bottle of wine in Little Red’s basket.

Yes, that innocent bottle of vino, meant as a gift for her ailing grandmother, was deemed unsuitable for young readers. Never mind that it’s nestled among bread and other practical offerings of a bygone era. The Culver City school board concluded that this particular “adult” item was too risqué, apparently imagining that young readers, emboldened by the sight of a Bordeaux, might be convinced to skip trips to grandma’s altogether and head straight for the local tavern.

So, the book was pulled, banned for what they saw as promoting alcohol to minors. Lost in the fervor, of course, was any attention to the wolf - a talking, man-eating predator who quite literally dresses up in human clothes to deceive his prey. But that’s apparently forgivable next to Little Red's contraband cabernet.

And so, in the name of protecting impressionable minds, some California schools shelved one of the world’s oldest fairy tales, sparing young minds from the dangers of Red Riding Hood’s “party supplies.”

“Who is more to be pitied, a writer bound and gagged by policemen or one living in perfect freedom who has nothing more to say?”  Kurt Vonnegut

Tarzan

In the 1920s, Tarzan of the Apes swung straight into the moral crosshairs of a few especially concerned citizens. Edgar Rice Burroughs' tale of a noble savage raised by apes, living in perfect harmony with the jungle, and later joined by his beloved Jane, was scandalous not for its jungle violence or even its skimpily clad hero. No, the real outrage was that Tarzan and Jane were - brace yourself - living together in the treehouse without a marriage certificate in sight.

Authorities thought the adventure stories unsuitable for youngsters since there was no evidence that Tarzan and Jane had married before they started cohabiting in the treetops. In certain parts of the U.S., guardians of public virtue convinced themselves that young readers would catch a whiff of this “impropriety” and be inspired to throw themselves into similarly unconventional arrangements. For the censors, Tarzan’s jungle was a den of iniquity, a place where standards had slipped along with Jane’s social standing.

Ralph Rothmund, who ran Burroughs' estate, protested that the couple had taken marital vows in the jungle with Jane's father serving as minister. "The father may not have been an ordained minister," said Rothmund, "but after all things were primitive in those days in the jungle."

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”  Voltaire

Captain Underpants

On the surface, the Captain Underpants series would appear an unlikely candidate for being one of the most challenged and banned books in the US. But it has been a target for moral outrage ever since Dav Pilkey unleashed it on the world in 1997.

Now, one might think that the tale of two grade-school pranksters who hypnotize their principal into becoming an underwear-clad superhero would hardly constitute a societal threat, but certain parents, school boards, and watchdog groups disagreed. Their chief complaint? It’s "disrespectful to authority."  

According to Business Insider, the series has faced bans and challenges across the United States. From Florida to Oregon, parents have filed complaints with the Orwellian entitled “Office for Intellectual Freedom” against the series. Mostly from those who worry that Pilkey’s brand of irreverence might plant dangerous ideas - such as questioning the infallibility of principals or viewing authority figures as actual humans, complete with foibles and, yes, questionable fashion choices. For some, it was simply too much to bear.

Of course, what these critics completely missed is the innocent joy of it all. Captain Underpants doesn’t seek to upend the social order; it simply offers kids a laugh at the absurdity of life’s rules. And perhaps that’s the real scandal - a reminder that sometimes, even adults need to be knocked off their pedestals, preferably while wearing a cape and a truly tragic pair of briefs.

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”  Soren Kierkegaard

Where The Wild Things Are

Since its publication in 1963, Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are has become one of the most beloved children's books.

In the story, a boy named Max wreaks havoc in his mother’s house and, after being sent to bed without dinner, is magically transported to an island inhabited by monsters. He soon establishes himself as their ruler, but after growing tired of their company, returns to his own room.

Instead of being viewed as a harmless escape, some parents and educators, particularly in conservative pockets of the U.S., felt Sendak had opened the door to supernatural mischief, if not outright witchcraft. After all, a little boy conjuring a kingdom of monsters? A child with the power to tame beasts? There had to be something sinister lurking under the surface.

Bruno Bettelheim, writing in Ladies’ Home Journal, criticized Sendak for failing “to understand the incredible fear it evokes in the child to be sent to bed without supper, and this by the first and foremost giver of food and security - his mother.” Others were, thankfully, more sanguine, with a Cleveland newspaper wryly noting: “Boys and girls may have to shield their parents from this book. Parents are very easily scared.”

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."  Mark Twain

Harry Potter

When Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone hit the shelves in 1997, it seemed like a harmless enough fantasy about an eleven-year-old boy discovering he was a wizard.

But as the series grew into a global phenomenon, certain parent groups and school boards across the U.S. decided there was a problem lurking between the lines. Their concern? That author J.K. Rowling was promoting sorcery, plain and simple. And to them, this was no minor misdemeanor - it was a moral breach of epic proportions.

Across conservative communities from Alabama to Kansas, Harry Potter was promptly booted from library shelves and reading lists. The reasoning was as straightforward as it was bizarre: these books were allegedly luring children toward witchcraft and wizardry, tempting them to swap Sunday school for broomstick lessons. Forget that Hogwarts is fictional - its very existence was seen as a gateway to darkness, offering kids a magical world where the biggest concern wasn’t their GPA or standardized tests, but friendship, courage, and the occasional angry dragon.

The irony, of course, is that Harry Potter never promised readers any spells or enchanted castles; it simply gave kids permission to dream beyond the four walls of a classroom. But for those who saw menace in every wand wave and spell book, that dream was simply too dangerous.

“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself.” Potter Stewart

The Lorax

Dr. Seuss’s whimsical yet pointed little story about a grumpy, mustachioed creature who “speaks for the trees” was published in 1971.

It didn’t take long for certain adults to decide this was dangerous material. Specifically, the logging industry and its allies. The Lorax had committed a cardinal sin in certain circles: it dared to suggest that chopping down every last tree might not be the wisest approach to land management.  

By the 1980s, the book was facing bans and challenges, especially in timber-heavy regions like northern California. Local school boards, likely prodded by industry reps, removed The Lorax from libraries, fearing it might plant (pun intended) dangerous ideas in young minds. Imagine the horror of a generation of children questioning whether greed is actually good, or whether a forest might be worth preserving for something other than toothpicks and two-by-fours. Better to snuff out the story entirely than risk a few pesky questions about sustainability or the environment.

“Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but, unlike charity, it should end there.”  Clare Booth Luce

Winnie-the-Pooh

Winnie-the-Pooh is possibly the most famous bear in the history of fiction. Since A.A. Milne’s bear of “very little brain” first waddled into our hearts in 1926, the stuffed bear and companion of Christopher Robin would go on to become a worldwide phenomenon.

Yet, somehow, by the time the honey-loving bear made his way to modern-day China, he found himself embroiled in a political scandal he never could have imagined. In 2013, Chinese censors suddenly decided that Pooh Bear was not just a friendly forest creature but a dangerous subversive - a caricature mocking none other than President Xi Jinping.

The trouble began after a few internet users drew an unflattering comparison between Xi Jinping and our rotund, pants-less friend. Photos emerged online showing Xi next to then-President Obama, matched side-by-side with Pooh and his taller, leaner friend, Tigger.

The resemblance? Dubious. The implications? Apparently, enough to set off the Chinese government’s censorship alarms.

In response, China didn’t just tighten the lid - they slammed it shut. Winnie the Pooh, the world’s least likely political dissident, was officially persona non grata in China. Winnie the Pooh books, memes, and merchandise faced crackdowns. The government scrubbed any image or phrase that could possibly link Xi to the blundering bear. Disney’s live-action Christopher Robin movie was banned outright in 2018, just in case a glimpse of Pooh on screen might inspire a resurgence of, well, Pooh-related dissent.

“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”  Henry Louis Gates

Charlotte’s Web

When E.B. White’s Charlotte’s Web was published in 1952, most people saw it as a heartwarming tale about friendship and loyalty between a pig named Wilbur and a wise spider named Charlotte.

But for a few folks in certain corners of Kansas, this charming story was something far more sinister. Talking animals? Blasphemous, they declared. Because, clearly, a pig that converses with a spider about life, death, and the finer points of web-spinning could only be an affront to good moral order.

Perhaps it was Charlotte’s articulate charm, or maybe it was the idea of a barnyard full of critters engaging in deep philosophical conversations. Either way, some took one look at this innocent story and saw it as an existential threat - a challenge to the natural (or, should we say, divinely sanctioned) silence of livestock. In this worldview, animals are meant to oink, moo, or cluck, not debate morality or spin words into webs.

And so, in certain Kansas school districts, Charlotte’s Web was removed from shelves and reading lists, as though these talking animals might inspire the local children to question their own roles in the great cosmic plan. Heaven forbid that a kid starts wondering if their pet dog has thoughts on mortality. Or worse, that their Thanksgiving turkey might have had an opinion about its life choices.  

“Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance."  Lyndon Johnson

1984

George Orwell’s 1984 is practically the textbook definition of anti-authoritarian literature.

Written in 1949, it paints a grim picture of a world where Big Brother watches your every move, truth is constantly rewritten, and independent thought is a punishable offense. It was meant to serve as a cautionary tale against totalitarianism, but somehow, in the twisted logic of censorship, it found itself branded as “pro-communist” and subsequently earned the status as the most banned book of all time in America.

That’s right. The very book that warns about the perils of state-enforced conformity, of thoughts controlled by a shadowy bureaucracy, gets blacklisted for supposedly pushing the very ideology it critiques. To some censors in America during the Cold War era, it didn’t matter that Orwell’s dystopian nightmare bore more than a passing resemblance to Stalinist Russia; apparently, any novel that questioned authority and depicted a world without individual freedoms was a bit too “red” for comfort.

So, in an attempt to protect young minds from supposed communist influence, 1984 was scrubbed from many reading lists proving, in pure Orwellian fashion, that thought policing was alive and well. Somewhere, Orwell might have cracked a knowing smile, because if there was ever a case of life imitating art, this was it. In a feat of self-parody worthy of 1984 itself, the very warning against censorship became a victim of it.

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”  George Orwell

The American Heritage Dictionary & Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you thought it couldn’t get anymore crazy than 1984 (above), think again. In the 1970s and ’80s, these two dictionaries – yes, dictionaries - became unlikely villains in the eyes of certain communities across the United States.

Far from being safe, dry reference books, they were labeled a corrupter of young minds - all because they listed words that some parents and school boards found, shall we say, unsavory. These dictionaries didn’t stop at just defining “apple” and “pie”; they included slang, anatomical terms, and other “improper” entries that a few too many considered off-limits.

To these parents and educators, these straightforward tomes were more than neutral catalogs of the English language; they were potential gateways to ideas and language best left unmentioned in polite society. Faced with this fear, schools in several states pulled these dictionaries off the shelves to shield students from language they were probably hearing already anyway. So, what were intended as complete reference guides to the English language ended up banned in parts of the country. In doing so, communities effectively decided that their young people could handle any number of complex subjects, just not the vocabulary needed to describe them.

“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads."  George Bernard Shaw

In the end, the funny thing about banning books is that it rarely works the way censors hope. Sure, you can toss a book off a library shelf, label it “inappropriate,” or fret over what imaginary harm it might cause. But books - ideas, really - have a way of slipping past the barricades. It’s not the monsters in the story we should worry about, but the monsters in our own minds. The books themselves - talking spiders, pants-less heroes, and rebellious children - are just mirrors, reflecting back the insecurities of the people who wish them gone. And when you’re scared of what you see, the easiest fix is to break the mirror and hope the cracks hold. But that only leaves you with a warped, incomplete reflection of the world.

The bigger danger, then, isn’t that kids will encounter ideas that don’t fit neatly into someone else’s “safe” little worldview. It’s that we’ve become comfortable with the idea that if we don’t like something, we can simply erase it, scrub it from reality. As though locking it away would somehow keep young minds from imagining something bigger, stranger, and just a bit more wonderful than reality allows. But the line between protecting and controlling is thinner than most would care to admit, and lately, even the truth is getting caught in the crossfire.

In a world where closed minds and misinformation seem to work hand in hand, banning books feels almost quaint. Now, it’s not just stories that are being scrubbed but facts themselves. Yet, like any good story, the truth doesn’t disappear so easily. It leaks out, a quiet rebellion against an increasingly sanitized version of reality. And maybe that’s the irony: in trying so hard to keep the world “safe” from messy ideas, all we’re really doing is proving how much we need them.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too."  Voltaire

We thought we’d take a moment to recommend an excellent newly published book which casts a light on the narrow-mindedness that was the running theme of this post. After Oz, by Gordon McAlpine. It's a dark and timely follow up to The Wizard of Oz where eleven-year-old Dorothy is forced to face, head on, the prejudices of the Midwest in the late nineteenth century. Click here to read a review in our forums section.

#books #jamesandthegiantpeach #roalddahl #littlered #fairytales #vonnegut #tarzan #captainunderpants #wherethewildthingsare #mauricesendak #marktwain #harrypotter #jkrowling #thelorax #drseuss #winniethepooh #aamilne #china #charlottesweb #ebwhite #1984 #georgeorwell #voltaire #dictionary #afteroz #anyhigh