Fiona McCade: Take it as read, these books are OK for kids

The Catcher in the Rye is a big, fat, steaming pile of literary ordure. I was numb with boredom by the time I finished.

I hated it when I was 15, and I’m still peeved that I wasted precious hours of my life on that dull, massively overrated cack.

But don’t let me stop you reading it. I may have learned my lesson, but you feel free to go ahead and learn yours. I promise not to ask the local library to stop lending it simply because I didn’t like it one, little bit.

Although, if I tried this in West Lothian, they probably would.

A newly published survey of UK library authorities shows that since 2007, over 150 complaints have been received regarding “unsuitable, inappropriate or offensive” material in literature meant for children, including one in West Lothian, where a borrower objected to the book More and More Rabbits, so librarians took it off the shelves.

More and More Rabbits deals with Mr and Mrs Tails’s excessive progeny problems, which they eventually solve by sleeping separately. I’d have thought there was quite a big clue in the title, but the subject matter still came as a shock to the complainant, who disapproved of the rabbits’ natural contraceptive measures.

I’m wondering what’s not to like? These are socially-conscious, self-controlled rabbits – apparently united in holy wedlock – showing concern about over-population and safeguarding resources for their existing children within their own belief system. All I see is responsible family planning within a loving relationship.

What sort of story do you want? Ms Flopsy Bunny Makes a Mistake and Gets a Termination?

Unfortunately, that West Lothian library wasn’t alone in putting the displeasure of the few before the freedom of the many.

All across the UK, children’s books have been withdrawn for reasons that would bemuse most of us: Horrible Histories trivialises violence; Roald Dahl is rude; The Nutcracker and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves are too dark and frightening; other so-called offensive books include blasphemy (“Oh my God!”) and naughty words like “twit”, “dumbo” and “ignoramus”.

Some other complaints were fair enough. Tintin in the Congo is undoubtedly racist – even its author, Hergé, admitted he was ashamed of it – but if my kid brought it home, I wouldn’t demand that the library make it disappear. I’d sit down with him and talk about why it was so wrong. Just as I will if he ever reads anything by Jeremy Clarkson.

Don’t censor the library; censor yourself. If you don’t like it, don’t borrow it, but more usefully, learn something about literature.

Conflict is the stuff of good stories – no child wants to read The Little Cross-Cultural Liaison Officer That Could – and stories aren’t always fair to everybody. Imagine if all step-mothers demanded the destruction of every copy of Grimm’s Fairy Tales, since they constantly depict these poor women as evil, infanticidal villainesses? If every book that caused controversy were banned, there wouldn’t be much left on the shelves at all.

For example, as a republican, I was appalled by the Chronicles of Narnia.

Four kids turn up in a foreign land and what happens? A big lion gives them weapons of mass destruction and lo, they become kings and queens. Did the Narnians get a vote? Plenty of them fought on the side of the White Witch, but was there a plebiscite? No, this was blatant regime change and no amount of CGI can convince me otherwise.

A quick skim through the reading matter of my youth reminds me that The Secret Garden and Robinson Crusoe were racist; Alice in Wonderland made fun of the Mad Hatter’s work-related handicap; and Treasure Island gave a most unfavourable depiction of the alternatively-abled.

Still, I survived them all and I’d be happy for my son to experience them, too. Yes, even The Catcher in the Rye, if he really wants. But if he can read to the end without falling asleep, I’ll masticate and regurgitate the complete works of Jeffrey Archer. I’m assuming nobody objects?