Peer Pressure

The public school system is an area in which censorship and banning of books is still alive and well. There are questions of what is appropriate for children to read, what language is acceptable, what ideas aren't too revolutionary or polarizing, what subject matter isn't too adult. Books can be called into question for any number of offenses, but there is always an inconsistency in what is chosen to be excluded versus what is not.

Something that occurred to me as I was reading Catcher in the Rye was the idea of relatability in the characters in a piece of literature. Is it possible that censors fear children will be more apt to pay attention to a dangerous activity or philosophy if the character introducing it to them is someone they can relate to?

In Catcher in the Rye we follow Holden Caulfield, a high school student with a foul mouth and a notable lack of drive or determination. This book is frequently banned in schools, despite being fairly mild compared to similarly banned literature. Is the fact that Holden is in the peer group of impressionable readers at all a factor? Take also the example of Harry Potter's trouble with censorship. In the case we discussed, the censors cited the characters' disregard for authority as one of the reasons that the books constituted objectionable material for students. Was the fact that Harry himself was a student viewed as more dangerous and persuasive in conveying these radical thoughts and ideas to children?

Peer pressure is a common phenomenon among children and teens. If your friends urge it, you may start smoking, drinking, and taking part in a wide variety of other behaviors that would make Nancy Reagan cry. If you think of Harry Potter or Holden Caulfield as your friend, then God knows what those other behaviors could involve?