1. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell. Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group

Great Balls of Fire! I just had to go to the library's site and put a hold on this. Anti-Ethnic?? These are penguins. What ethnicity is that??

I do think a parent should know when these books - and others - are being read since there are issues that might want to be brought up. Healthy discussion is a good thing.

I've written about this here before, but when my kids decided not to read anymore - one of many adolescent attempts to drive me crazy - I would read a book myself and then tell them not to touch it, since it contained things I didn't want them to read. (No, really, I had to say, "...too much sex for someone like you")

>Should any books be restricted -- if not banned -- for children according to age?

You know, my parents went a different direction with this. There was practically nothing on our home bookshelves (which held a huge variety of fiction and non-fiction) that was forbidden to me. At the library, while other kids were banished to the Young Reader's Room, I could roam anywhere in the shelves and my parents often checked out books for me that the librarian wouldn't let me check out on my own. They decided it was better to answer my questions about what I had read than to let my curiosity wither and die in the face of constant denial. I was definitely a better reader and a better student because of it, and in the long run, most of the things they would have been tempted to bar me from reading, turned out not to really interest me that much beyond that first flush of curiosity.

Great strategy, Eve. Reminds me of the joke by B.J. Novak, one of the actors and writers for The Office (a favorite in my non-reading time). Goes like this: I spent four years in college. I didn’t learn a thing. It was really my own fault. I had a double major in psychology and reverse psychology.

I came across a link to an opposing viewpoint on banned books week. Whether you agree with the author's religious/moral/etc. views, she does bring up a valid point about the fact that librarians choose which books make it on to library shelves. I'm planning to write a post about this over the weekend ... I'm sure if will stir up some hot debate!

What I wonder about is whether the books were actually read before they were challenged? You look at some of the comments and think, "Dude! Didya READ it? It doesn't say that at ALL!"

Second, and somewhat tangential comment: children's literature as a genre are relatively recent in the history of mankind. Up until the Industrial Revolution (and somewhat during the Industrial Revolution), most kids were WORKING most of the time - helping out in the family business, learning a trade, etc. etc. The kind of books they may have seen were the school readers and then they left school early to help support their families. It's taken us, what, about 100 years to build up a body of work to the point where we complain about it?

I feel like saying, "Count your blessings that your kid has time to read and bug you about a book."

I never censored my son's book choices. I did however try to steer him toward books that he would be capable of reading, understanding and enjoying. I wanted reading to be a pleasure for him and not a chore and I felt like a book that was too difficult would only frustrate him. In that vein, I think age recommendations could be helpful. By the way, my son's in college, majoring in English.

I see a common theme among the commenters: caring and thoughtful parents. When parents work with children on reading, and in picking appropriate books, government guidance (or censorship) really is beside the point, isn't it?