Scans_Daily

Haven't accomplished much this weekend. Watched it rain. Watched Television. Listened to Audiobook. Slept. Talked to Mother and Mother's cousin. Watched the new director of religious ed at church give sermon on Youtube - she's interesting? She's about five foot, in her late 50s/early 60s, gray headed, African-American woman. And great with the kids.

Her sermon was entitled "Burn the Book" and was about "Banned Books" in honor of the Brooklyn Book Festive. She referenced Toni Morrison's Essay Peril, which is in a book of essays on banned books, edited by Toni Morrison and called Burn This Book.

I've been thinking a lot about Banned Books and the history of it - since my post on problematic authors and Harry Potter. Some of the responses, while clearly meant to be helpful, were ...ahem disturbing? I think we need to be mindful in our desire to help, that we don't inadvertently do more harm? The problem with righteousness in the course of a just cause that we feel strongly about - is it can often lead towards a deeply myopic take on the world, and we can lose sight of the big picture.

Example? Reading Neil Gaimans books in no way supports his actions. Any more than reading JK Rowling's novels supports hers. Nor does checking out the movies from the library support her actions. You aren't financing or funding them in any way, checking out those books from a library, nor are you furthering their views. But if you ban those books - you are preventing others from experiencing them for themselves, and also justifying the banning of other books in the process.

As Elizabeth Anne Terry, the Religious Ed Instructor stated, we all should have the right to check out any book from a library, and the right to read and judge that book for ourselves. To interpret it for ourselves. Just as everyone should have the right to write any book they please about anything that they please and share it with others.

The difficulty with freedom of speech or really any right for that matter, is we don't get to choose who has them. People we disagree with - are allowed the same rights that we have. Otherwise they aren't rights. Fascism and Authoritarianism occurs when only one group has rights, and the others are suppressed and don't.

I bring this up because October 4th is the beginning of National Banned Books Week. A banned book - is any book that an individual or group of individuals or organization has decided needs to be banned or removed from a libraries book shelves, whether it be a school library or a public library. Libraries are sacred - they are free - and provide access to books to all. Banned books - are often banned out of fear - fear that a book will change how people think, cause them to see the world differently, expand their thinking, inform, or even incite or provide another viewpoint.

Want to see a list of Banned Books - during the Sermon, Terry listed the following books:
( Read more... )
There's more.

Banned and Challenged Books Updated in 2026

Pen America Banned Book List for 2024-2025, updated in February 2026

I get hating a book. ( Read more... )

I will not destroy a book. Even "Art of the Deal" written by Donald Trump. I hate Mein Kempf, but I won't destroy it. I find the books written by Marquis de Sade disturbing, but I won't destroy them.

Books are historical records. They should be cherished. We don't destroy or ban books.

And I get that there are writers and artists out there who have lead questionable and problematic private and public lives, some have done monstrous things. They are not monsters. They have committed monstrous acts. This tendency to demonize people and not the act, is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. People are more than one thing? And they can create something beautiful that is worth reading, worth looking at, and worth savoring - even if they've also done something horrible. And just because XYZ thinks that the work was evil, doesn't necessarily mean it is, and it can be interpreted more than one way. And XYZ does not have the right to prevent the rest of us from making up our own minds about it. Or telling us how we should think about it, nor do book critics, academics, professors, or anyone else. We are allowed to read, see or view it for ourselves and make up our own minds.

Should Machiavelli's The Prince be censored and banned just because one group of people saw it as a handbook on how to rule, while another interpret it as a satire - showing the opposite?

I ask people to think about this. Every time you want to censor or ban something, imagine for a moment a work of art that you love or has changed and transformed you in a positive way being banned and censored - so that you never ever saw or read it? Imagine what that would be like. And ask yourself, do you have the right to do that to someone else? And who are you to judge what should or shouldn't be read or seen or heard or watched?

I know this is hard. But we don't know how others will view something. And how it will change them. And it's not on us to decide for them. We shouldn't have that kind of power.

Yes, I get that you want to support LGBTA and you want to help those who suffered abuses, but there are other ways? Donate funds to LGBTA charities. To Services for Domestic Violence, The Trevor Project, Legal Services that support Trans Rights. Stop subscribing to Paramount and HBO streaming services. Don't purchase merchandise.

Banning the books doesn't help anyone. Telling people not to read them. Shaming people who read Harry Potter, or love Ocean at the End of the Lane, or adore Enders Game helps no one. You aren't furthering any cause. You are doing the exact opposite. You can defend Trans Rights, at the same time you ensure a child has access to Harry Potter novels on school library shelves. It's possible. Same with Ender's Game, and countless other books.

Try to support Libraries and the effort to prevent censorship, by championing a book, even one you might personally hate.

Thanks for reading/listening, if you made it this far.

Spent most of the day watching television, while it rained. It's not that bad where I am? But I know that five miles north of me, there can be flooding. NYC is crazy when it comes to weather? It's a bunch of islands.
And it can be sunny in one place, and high winds and drenching down pours in another. Also the subways really aren't set up for drenching down pours. They are working on fixing the problem - however. They have an emergency response network set up. I know, I listened to a presentation on it.

1. Lanterns - I'm up to date on Lanterns. The problem I'm having with it - is that the only Lantern, I like is Hal Jordan. John Stewart isn't bad - but he annoys me. He's an entitled ass. Guy Gardner, is also an entitled arrogant ass. Hal Jordan on the other hand has a world weary vulnerability and a snarky sense of humor. Plus he's played by Kyle Chandler who I adore.

Why is this a problem? ( spoilers )

Lanterns, Supergirl and Peacemaker underline an on-going issue with DC's films and why they aren't as popular as Marvel's.

Most of their heroes and characters bare a disturbing resemblance to Chris Pratt's Star Lord in behavior, temperament and sense of humor. And let's face it, a little of Star Lord goes a long way? And the only reason Guardians worked is all the other characters in it?

Yes, that may appeal to a few fans, but not a general global audience? Movies have to appeal to a much bigger audience than television shows and well, comics. They are more expensive to make.

Other than that - I am still enjoying it. I like the mystery set up. Even though, it doesn't quite work for me that everyone hates Hal Jordan, when he's the most likable and appealing of the three. Honestly, who could hate Kyle Chandler?

2. The Witch - directed by Robert Eggers, starring Ana Taylor-Joy (her first major film role - her face is fuller in this role and she's a lot younger).

Disturbing film. I'd place it the category of atmospheric psychological thriller? Although more creepy than scary? It is violent in places. Graphically so. But the colors are so muted, it's not clear. And most of the violence is implied off screen. Particularly the violence against children - that's not really shown - but it is implied.

Eggers adapts it from various folktales, historical documents, and legends of New England at the time. It takes place in 1630 New England - and is about a family of Pilgrims who have been outcast from their settlement. The father refused to follow the dictates of the settlement and its teachings. As a result, they were cast out to fend on their own. Things do not go well - to say the least or much chaos ensues.

The cinematography is well done for the most part. Although it is hard to figure out what is happening in some sections - the more horrific sections actually. Eggers is of the less is more school in horror. So he suggests what is happening. Also it's stripped of color for the most part, and is shown in dull color tones. (Thankfully. Since this is a graphically violent movie.)

Trigger Warning? Child death is heavily featured and while it's not exactly shown so much as implied and happens off screen? It's graphic. It's also rather brutal. If you have issues with the death of small children, violence against children, babies, or the molestation a ten year old boy - and that triggers you? Best to avoid.

3. Backrooms - directed by Kate Parsons, and distributed by A24. This is the horror film that A24 found on Youtube and funded the original director to turn into a movie. A24 has helped revitalize the horror film genre. And honestly A24 is turning out some of the more innovative films right now.

This is one mind-fuck of a movie. Eerie, disturbing and creepy on various levels. Takes the concept of psychological thriller to a whole new level.

I kind of went in blind. And I think you almost have to? Because the movie is difficult to describe without massive spoilers.

The setup? An owner of a furniture store - Captain Clark's Furniture Warehouse goes to Mary, a psychologist, to air out his issues. One night, Clark alone, watching television in his warehouse - he discovers something odd and goes to investigate. He probably should have left well enough alone. But curiosity and all that...and discovers well, a series of insane back rooms to the furniture store...rooms that shouldn't exist, and are designed in weird ways that make no sense. Alarmed and terrified, he tells Mary about them, who doesn't believe him. So he decides to go back and get proof...things do not go well and much chaos ensues.

To say this is a weird-ass film is putting it mildly. But it is really hard to talk about without spoiling you? So...leaving it at that.

Did I like it? I don't know? Does one ever really like horror? Is it a good movie? It's different, and interesting, and compelling, and very disturbing, not to mention creepy. But I have seen similar things - in some respects it reminds me a lot of Severance? Except better pacing. (It's a movie not a series. I couldn't get past the third episode of Severance - which kept putting me to sleep - this held my attention. Also it's scarier than Severance.)

4. Kate Moss's Labyrinth - this is the television miniseries adapted from Moss's novel. Not the David Bowie film (which I kind of liked better?). It does however have an interesting cast? Sebastian Stan and Vanessa Kirby star in it - and it is among their earliest roles. As does John Hurt, Tony Curran, John Lynch, Tom Felton...

It jumps back and forth between 2012 and the 13th Century (Medieval Times), following two separate women's searches for the holy grail. But not linked to Arthur. It's a thriller. In both time lines - the women are in danger.
The modern day time line has better pacing and is easier to follow. It's not executed well. I've seen this thing done better elsewhere.

It is okay? But the jumps back and forth are kind of jarring and not set up well or synced. And you can tell it was a made-for-network-television two part mini-series by the act cuts, where commercial breaks were supposed to be? Commercial television tends to be a bit jumpy? With lots of act breaks.

Also the film stock has faded a bit.

That said - Stan and Kirby, who aren't given much to work with, shine, along with John Hurt. I have a girl crush on Vanessa Kirby. That actress is good in everything. This is among her first roles. As it is for Stan. I'm admittedly watching it mainly for them. Other than that, it's kind of disappointing and I'm not sure yet if I'll continue with it.

(I found it on Amazon Prime, although it's also streaming on Roku and Tubi.)