Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood by Sherman Alexie

            Sherman Alexie in the article "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood" found in the Wall Street Journal discusses how banning books because they are inappropriate is a very ineffective approach when these teens are living the same situations. He is against banning books. Alexie introduces the topic by describing the many teens he has met that have been involved in poverty, racism, sexual and physical abuse, etc. Then he contradicted Meghan Cox Gurdon's article, by saying how he was a teen once, and he only wished that he had the chance to read the books people are banning today. He also found a perfect example, a seventeen year old's problems, that rebutted Gurdon's argument. He says, "he was old enough to die and kill for his country. And old enough to experience the infinite horrors of war. But according to Ms. Gurdon, he might be too young to read a YA novel that vividly portrays those very same horrors." This situation is that the seventeen year old was going to have to enlist into the army, but those people who want to ban books about war are saying that these books may be inappropriate for them when they are practically living it. Alexie ends the article by stating that the best books are written by the author who has experienced the issues in the book. 
            Alexie uses many craft moves, and one of them are the questions that he asks. At one point of the article, Alexie not only asked just one question, but he loaded the reader with a series of questions, all rhetorical. These questions all had the same answer, which I thought was a very crafty move because he could have easily made his point with one sentence. However, asking the reader several questions makes it seem like his point of view is right; it seems like he has more evidence for his claim. Another craft move that Alexie uses are loaded words. Loaded words give a very biased effect on the reader, which is exactly what the author of any article would want; to agree or side with him or her. Some examples found in the article are: "desperate, terrible, absolutely, and tragic." These loaded words describe some teens' lives, which are the very words book banners are describing some of the books. It doesn't make sense to ban books that are of real world situations, which real teens deal with.
            I agree that it doesn't make sense to ban books just because they have "unsuitable topics" for teens, when those very readers are experiencing the same thing. The book banners are not protecting anyone from the content, but like Alexie said, they are protecting "their privileged notions of what literature is and should be." This line stood out to me because I never understood why people would want to ban books. "Inappropriate content" or "protecting children from horror" did not seem like a good enough reason for banning books, and yet there are successful attempts. When I read this article, it finally clicked in my brain. These people aren't doing it for the general public, but for themselves, and like what Alexie said, for their version of what books should be. 

Stargirl By Leo Borlock

“Days passed. I continued to avoid Stargirl. I wanted her. I wanted them. It seemed I could not have both, so I did nothing. I ran and hid.”

                                -Leo Borlock

The main character in Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli is Leo Borlock, who goes to Mica High School. They don’t like Stargirl, and shuns her because they blame her for the loss of the Electrons, Mica’s basketball team; Stargirl cheered for the other team. When Stargirl was new to the school, she achieved brief popularity for being so uniquely different (like wearing clothes that were not in style, bringing her pet rat to school, sings everyone happy birthday, etc.) but when she ends up at the bottom of the social scale, being different just made everyone hate her more. Stargirl is meaningful for teens because it shows you how much you should appreciate things before they’re gone.

For example, when Leo started spending time with Stargirl, everyone started shunning him also, or as Leo puts it: “I had linked myself to an unpopular person. That was my crime.” Leo realized he had to decide who he cared more about: Stargirl, or everyone else. Leo really loved Stargirl, but at the same time, he also cared about what others thought of him. As the quote above stated, Leo didn’t choose, and ignored everything, including Stargirl. When Stargirl moved to Minnesota, he deeply regretted this, and wanted a second chance. This just shows how much he didn’t appreciate Stargirl until she was gone. 

I think everyone made, is making, or will make, Leo’s same mistake. It’s not so easily avoided, because when you have plenty of one thing, you start taking advantage of it, but then when it’s gone, you start regretting what you did, and wishing you had done things differently. I know because it has happened to me lots of times before. I remember the first time I left home for an overnight trip. My brother and I always had these little arguments that would leave us both very frustrated at each other, and I couldn’t wait until I had a break away from that. I could not believe how much I actually missed him, and I wondered to myself whether fighting with each other was worth it. I silently made a goal of treating my brother a bit better. It was then I realized how lucky I was to have a brother at all. When I got home, we were like the best brother and sister ever. However, it didn’t last for long until we were back to square one. 

What I’m trying to say is that people don’t appreciate things until they’re out of our grasp. We should not make things harder, and be thankful we have it at all. If people really were just thankful for however much they have, at least people won’t be as hard on themselves as Leo was.

“That was fifteen years ago. Fifteen Valentine’s Days. I wonder what she calls herself now. I wonder if she’s lost her freckles. I wonder if I’ll ever get another chance.”

                               -Leo Borlock

What do you think?