Discussion and Conclusion
Not every challenge found for the thirty-eight titles discussed had a direct antithesis in the reasons why their contributors found them inspiring. However, it was not to be expected that every comparison for a particular title would display two sides of the same thematic coin. Many challenges concentrated on the aspects Foerstel and others identified as the usual reasons: sexual content, violence, profanity, and religious themes.50 As Burress indicated would be the case, challengers often did “not consider the value or meaning of a work as a whole; they [made] arbitrary decisions about a book based on some single aspect of it—its language, for example, or a single episode.”51 Those objections logically would not find parallels in the reasons that the BTI contributors found their books meaningful, which usually did concentrate on the holistic or thematic aspects of their chosen books.
Moreover, it was entirely predictable that greater similarities would emerge within some themes more than others. For example, one would expect to find challenges citing the age appropriateness of books for young readers but not other age groups: No challenge would insist that a work was particularly ill-suited for a middle-aged audience while ignoring other readers. Challenges were neither expected nor found on the grounds of the more positive and noncontroversial themes, such as positive emotional value or affirmative social critique, and the specialized academic texts that comprised many of the contributions to concept 6, “Intellectual Influence and Appeal,” were similarly unlikely to attract the attention of would-be censors in any significant number.
However, the hypothesis that a relationship would exist between the BTI statements praising and the challenges condemning certain books was supported. That relationship tended to take one of three forms. In the most direct form, censors specifically rejected the theme that the contributor praised—the Chilean case of Don Quixote is a perfect example, as are the challenges that contradicted the theme of age appropriateness or the many rejections of the Darwinian world-view. Second (and much more often), censors simply did not interpret the books as exhibiting the praiseworthy value or theme that the inspired readers recognized, many asserting that the books showed quite the opposite. The challengers who viewed Steinbeck’s portrayals as demeaning instead of heroic, who condemned Twain for racism that the contributor viewed his novel as decrying, and who wrote off the work of Emerson and Millay not as insightful and moving but as “foolishness,” all showed this second type of correspondence. The challenges reflected negative versions of these themes—but in so doing, they showed the same thematic focus as the contributors who celebrated the books. Claims that books should be suppressed for bad morals and values, inaccurate perspectives, or unwarranted social critiques indicate that values, perspectives, and social critique are among the key literary concerns to challengers and inspired readers alike. Finally, in a few cases, BTI statements and challenges managed to demonstrate the same theme despite discussing entirely different aspects of the book. Another challenge to Don Quixote shows this type of correspondence. The grounds for its censorship (incipient Lutheranism) had nothing whatsoever to do with the reason the contributor praised it (embracing subjectivity and uncertainty), yet both shared in prioritizing the worldview displayed in the book as among a reader’s chief concerns.
The content analysis of the BTI statements was performed essentially in a vacuum: The recurrent themes were grouped and the vocabulary to describe them was developed before any reference was made to the literature on readers’ motivations. It is therefore striking how strongly the themes that emerged in this study reflect Ross’s reasons people read:
Over and over, in published studies and in the interviews with readers in my own study, readers say: books give me comfort [Positive Emotional Value], make me feel better about myself, reassure me that I am normal and not a freak because characters in books have feelings like mine. Books provide confirmation that others have gone through similar experiences and survived [Resonance]. Books help me clarify my feelings [Introspection/Self-Examination], change my way of thinking about things [Challenged Own Worldview/Expanded Horizons], help me think through problems in my own life, help me make a decision, and give me the strength and courage to make some major changes in my own life. They give me a sense of mastery and control, give me courage to fight on, make me think that if the hero(ine) can overcome obstacles, then so can I [Heroes and Role Models], give me the hope to rebuild my life, and help me accept things I cannot change [Life Lessons]. They put me in touch with a larger more spacious world [Common Humanity and Universality; Empathy with Other Experiences; Factual Learning]. In summary, books provide a special kind of pleasure that cannot be achieved in any other way [Readership].52
What is interesting about the BTI statements examined in this study is that readers cited those ideas as more than reasons to read for pleasure or explanations why certain books became favorites. Rather, they interpreted those themes as definitions of books that inspire, finding inspiration in all its forms—hope, encouragement, strength, independence, intellectual growth, personal improvement—in the reasons they were readers in the first place. That connection implies that seeking and finding inspiration is itself core to the reasons that people read. As academic librarians recognize the importance of leisure reading to the civic engagement and personal fulfillment of their students and seek to serve the academic mission by promoting it, it is hoped that this purpose will be remembered.
Molly Strothmann is Assistant Professor of Bibliography and Social and Behavioral Sciences Librarian, University of Oklahoma Libraries, Norman. Connie Van Fleet is Professor, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Submitted for review December 31, 2008; accepted for publication February 25, 2009.
Reference & User Services Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 2 pp. 163–179
© 2009 American Library Association. All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce for nonprofit, educational use.