I lived in Montgomery County, Maryland, for 15 years. My new book, Family Unfriendly, begins in Montgomery County. The final anecdote occurs in Montgomery County. One of the times I lost my son, which I describe in the book, involved the Montgomery County Police Department being good and helpful.
I wrote much of the book in Montgomery County: at home, at the Stained Glass Pub, at local coffee shops, and in the Montgomery County Public Libraries — which I even praise in the book for hosting parent-and-child events for stay-at-home parents.
So imagine my disappointment when I learned that the county library system had decided that Family Unfriendly was not appropriate for its shelves. A current MoCo resident whom I know professionally requested the library purchase my book. The library said no.
Let me be perfectly clear: I do not think my book is really being “banned.” But if we adopted the common media definition of “banned books,” then a county official refusing to carry my book is certainly an instance of banning.
Still, I wondered what the county’s criteria are that would drive them to exclude my book, even when requested by a library user. I’m especially curious because middle-class to upper-middle-class suburban parents — that is, hundreds of thousands of readers — comprise the chief target audience of Family Unfriendly.
So I checked out the acquisition policies.
The county library system endorses the American Library Association’s “freedom to read” principles, which reject efforts to “remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label ‘controversial’ views, to distribute lists of ‘objectionable’ books or authors, and to purge libraries.”
It seems then that it would want to be inclusive of books, even those whose arguments it disagrees with.
Here’s how it says it selects which books to carry:
“Our professional selection staff looks for reviews in publishing journals (for example, Kirkus, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal) as well as through other media outlets, awards lists, and customer demand. Selectors rely on professional reviews and media interest to assist us in the selection of non-fiction.”
Kirkus, a reviewer targeted for book buyers such as libraries, did review my book, positively, back in February. “With practical views and advice, Carney offers a road map toward better parenting,” the top of the piece said.
“Raising children, he believes, is the most satisfying and important thing a person can experience. Some readers will disagree, but for aspiring parents, the author is an encouraging guide.”
Yes, some people will disagree with my views, but the MCPL guidelines explicitly say that’s fine. “Individuals may not find all materials in the collection to their liking, but this should in no way restrict the freedom of others to read, listen, or view materials in which they are interested.”
Family Unfriendly got a positive review in the Wall Street Journal, which called my book “spirited” and the topic important, and it noted, “Mr. Carney is particularly good on the grim ramifications of low birth rates.”
Other positive professional reviews include The Gospel Coalition, Current, the Washington Free Beacon, First Things, the Acton Institute, and Christianity Today.
The county says it buys based on media attention. Here I am mentioned in the New York Times and appearing on MSNBC, the Megyn Kelly Show, and countless podcasts.
It seems I check all its boxes: positive Kirkus review, many positive professional reviews, widespread media attention.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
I wonder why it would reject my book. Is it the content — too religious or too conservative? Is it because it thinks it has too many white male authors already? Is it because I’ve been a consistent critic of the county government?
I’m filing a Freedom of Information Act request in order to find out. Until then, I look forward to being celebrated as an author of a “banned book.”