As a young girl, I was fascinated with the story of Pinkalicious, a character in the picture book of the same name written by Victoria Kann. Just like Pinkalicious, I loved all things pink, especially pink cupcakes. For those unfamiliar, the moral of the tale “Pinkalicious” is that actions have consequences. The story and associated lessons are addressed to children in the age range of four to eight years. After ignoring her mother’s advice and chowing down on a dish of pink cupcakes, Pinkalicious’s body turns pink. The doctor diagnoses her with a severe case of “pinkititis” and prescribes her a strict diet of only green fruit and vegetables so that she can return to normal. However, Pinkalicious sneakily eats one more cupcake and turns red. It is only then that she decides to listen to the doctor’s advice and eat green fruits and veggies.
After its publication in 2006, the book skyrocketed in popularity and the “Pinkalicious” universe only expanded from there. It was transformed into a play (which I saw with my parents at Main Street Theatre), a musical, and later a TV series that has been airing on PBS Kids since 2018. The “Pinkalicious” literary universe has continued to expand as well; from the first “Pinkalicous” book being published to the last one being “Pinkalicious: Lost in Paris,” published in 2024. There is a total of 64 published “Pinkalicous” books. Just like me, there are thousands of children in my generation who had these books in their regular rotation of bedtime stories. The “Pinkalicious” books helped us develop a love of reading and a sense of right and wrong.
Recently, I discovered that “Pinkalicious” has landed on the list of 429 banned books in Tennessee’s Wilson County. In a recent social media post on February 6 of this year, Victoria Kann, the book’s author, confesses that she is unaware of the reason why her book is banned. In writing the book, her intention was to spread the message of “loving yourself just the way you are and eating healthy.” She believes that through crafting stories such as “Pinkalicious,” she can successfully encourage young readers to dream big and create. With literacy rates decreasing across the nation, and the practice of book banning steadily becoming more prominent, she wonders what the future of the younger generation will look like.
Kann’s questions reflect issues regarding the issue of book banning in the modern day. However, what many may not know is that the practice of banning books is not new at all. According to the Gutman Library of Harvard School of Education, the first banned book in the United States can be traced back to 1637, when the Puritan government of Massachussetts banned Thomas Morton’s “New English Canaan” for criticizing the Puritan customs and power structures of the New England colonies. Historically, books have been banned on grounds of morality, politics, or religion, and many books that now are considered classics were once burned, such as the Bible and some works of Shakespeare. However, today we are seeing a shift in what kinds of books are being banned and why.
Book banning has become more of an issue in the context of schools and education. According to PEN America, over 10,000 books were banned during the 2023-24 school year, in nearly 30 states and over 200 school districts. Those imposing book bans often try to justify the bans by claiming that their intent is to protect young readers from inappropriate or offensive content. The content that is being deemed offensive nowadays is reflective of conservative values which are not shared by the entire world. Of these currently banned books, 44% feature characters of color and 39% of them LGBTQ+ characters, proving that the current pattern of book banning disproportionately targets stories from these underrepresented communities. As a result, younger generations are being pressured to homogenize, and young readers belonging to these marginalized communities are not seeing their perspectives and stories be told.
As for Pinkalicous, postings on the social media platform Reddit regarding Wilson County speculate the reason for the book being banned. Some say it is due to the Tennessee Obscenity Law, which states that a book featuring an image of a bare behind cannot be on the shelves of a K-12 public school library. On pages seven and eight of “Pinkalicious,” there is indeed an illustration of Pinkalicious in a bathtub, but she is all covered in foam and we can only see her head and one foot. A similar law exists in Texas. According to the Texas State Teachers Association, “HB 900, which went into effect Sept. 1, 2023, was allegedly intended to shield students from ‘sexually explicit material’ but in fact seeks to ban or restrict materials in public school libraries and classrooms by creating a vague and undefined rating system.”
This vague law can be interpreted in any way that policymakers see fit, leading to the current trend that we see where books focusing on the experience of people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community are removed from the public eye. TSTA acknowledges that “a children’s story having nothing to do with gender identity, sexual orientation or intimate relationships but set in a home with two mothers may be material rated by one vendor as sexually explicit, by another as sexually relevant and understood by educators to simply be an example of inclusive literature that does not warrant a caution label.”
If this truly is the reason for the book’s banning, it is ridiculous reasoning for thousands of children to miss on reading the adventures of Pinkalicious and finding themselves is this daring girl clad in pink fairy clothes who likes eating cupcakes and challenging her parents and their rules. They will miss out on reading a tale about actions and consequences and the difference between right and wrong. Beyond “Pinkalicious,” as previously stated, hundreds of books are being banned on grounds that should not be an issue. The voices of our beautifully diverse communities are being silenced, and barriers are being constructed around what should be considered “normal”. It is simply ridiculous.
