Re-examining attempts to ban Bone
The all-ages graphic novel series Bone by Jeff Smith tells a story of adventure using funny animal characters. It explores themes of good vs evil, friendship and perseverance. Over the years, some parents and educators have raised concerns over brief scenes involving smoking and drinking.
Upon reflection, calls to restrict ideas or speech, even with good intentions, can set troubling precedents. Perhaps a more thoughtful approach is better fostering open discussions. By understanding different views in context, people of good faith can find common ground.
Concerns stem from a few isolated scenes
In 2010, a mother in Minnesota raised objections over scenes of smoking and drinking in Bone, arguing they made the series inappropriate for school libraries. Since then, Bone has faced additional sporadic calls for bans or restrictions.
For example, in 2012 the series was moved to a Texas junior high library over suitability concerns for younger students. Critics argue such scenes, though infrequent, may promote unhealthy behaviors in youth.
Countering the risks
Defenders of Bone counter the scenes are very moderate. For example, leading character Smiley Bone is shown smoking a cigarette only once, and not glorified. Fone Bone also becomes briefly intoxicated after ingesting locust sap.
Such instances are neither pervasive nor gratuitous. They serve the story without encouraging youth smoking or drinking. Overall the series promotes positive themes for young readers using imaginative fantasy, not unlike classics like Charlotte‘s Web.
Speech issues go both ways
Some see calls to ban books like Bone as limiting speech or ideas. Others feel restrictions protect students. There are good arguments on both sides.
Perhaps the solution is not binary. Nuanced discussions, not broad brush stereotypes, help find common ground. Parents, educators and librarians can best serve students through open communication, not by notionally shielding them.
In the end, families and local communities are best suited to make contextual decisions. But in keeping with free speech principles, the default should favor access to ideas rather than restrictions.
The need for greater understanding
Reasonable people can disagree on complex issues like speech, ethics and youth education. But when discussion devolves to accusation, it inhibits solutions.
Rather than attacking perceived opponents, a more thoughtful approach recognizes most people aim, however imperfectly, for ethical ends. Open and earnest dialogue, not recrimination, illuminates common hopes.
That ideal of seeking mutual understanding, even in disagreement, merits continued reflection. Perhaps by moving in that spirit, people of good faith can find unity through our shared hopes for the young people who will one day lead our communities.
