That's ridiculous!
Odd fact: there is a very large collection of pornography in UCLA's Clarke Library. It's in special collections and needs to be checked through a librarian. The librarians who handle the special collections (absolutely no pun intended) hate dealing with it because it gets checked out regularly by sort of sketchy shady characters (public university, anyone can use the library).
no one's supposed to admit they exist?
So everyone is conveniently forgetting the SHELVES of Jackie Collins books that could be found in every library? Not to mention the Gor books (ew), Laurell K. Hamilton (boring, but smutty), or countless others? Hell, what about
Forever
by Judy Bloom?
They've all convinced themselves that those books aren't read for the sex. Whereas the only apparent appeal of the James books is the sex. I guess.
I love going into our local public library and smirking at the well-thumbed Hamiltons.
edit: Though I often run into books where some "helpful" person has put in notes saying "Don't read this part!" and then "Start reading here!" Or they've taking magic marker to the parts they object to. I'm sure they feel all uplifted and beatific when they return the improved books.
May I, as a Christian even, tell those helpful Utahns, "KNOCK IT OFF!"
Seriously, Connie, I would be BEYOND pissed.
I've pointed the books out to the librarians, who mutter nasty words under their breaths. Even Mormon librarians bristle at mutilated books.
Greg Rucka on writing (strong) women: [link]
I do suppose many of the people that would object to adding 50 Shades to the library aren't doing it because it's not a good example of writing or anything, but because they remembered it had sex (naughty sex!) and are kicking themselves for not paying attention to every sex scene in novels. I propose a retroactive purge and book burning. Of any book whose sex scenes make me roll mye yes.