Banning Catching Fire

Banning Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins has good intentions—protecting children; however, children/teenagers should be trusted to make their own decisions about what they read. Books are usually challenged or banned to protect others, for example; violence, sexually explicit or offensive language. Catching fire is said to be challenged because of its violence, anti-ethnic, anti-family, insensitivity, and offensive language. The Hunger Games series was on the 2010 challenged books lists. I believe that the violence in Catching Fire isn’t as extreme as some people think and it is not necessarily a bad thing. Exposing violence to younger readers matures them by making them realize that violence occurs all around them and they need to learn how to cope with it. I do understand though, why some parents do not want their children reading Catching Fire. There are dark themes, including the murder of children, a corrupt government, and the bitter-sweet of being turned against your loved ones. However, we say that Catching Fire should not be banned because they acknowledge the dark themes as being bad things. For example, Katniss recognizes the corruption in the capital and the hunger games and sees them as things that need to be changed, not as things that should continue. Collins also has extraordinary literary ment. As a reviewer stated, “Aside from being action-packed science-thrillers, these books are also full of powerful themes of morality, obedience, sacrifice, love and survival.” Catching Fire should not be censored because of its “satanic violence “, anti-ethnic, insensitivity and anti-family. Yes this is a war story, so obviously there would be violence, so I understand people saying it’s violent, but saying it is “satanic violent”? Are we talking about president snow and the mutts? The careers attitudes toward the games? Anti-ethnic? The book contains many characters who are ambiguous of race yes, but there are also many that are more distinctly pointed