What next?

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:44 pm

The New York Times

With One Word, Children’s Book Sets Off Uproar

By JULIE BOSMAN

Published: February 18, 2007

The word “scrotum does not often appear in polite conversation. Or children’s literature, for that matter.

A Newbery-winning book has been banned from some school libraries around the country.

Susan Patron, the author of the book and a librarian, said the controversial word was just part of the character’s learning about body parts.

Yet there it is on the first page of “The Higher Power of Lucky, by Susan Patron, this year’s winner of the Newbery Medal, the most prestigious award in children’s literature. The book’s heroine, a scrappy 10-year-old orphan named Lucky Trimble, hears the word through a hole in a wall when another character says he saw a rattlesnake bite his dog, Roy, on the scrotum.

“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much, the book continues. “It sounded medical and secret, but also important.

The inclusion of the word has shocked some school librarians, who have pledged to ban the book from elementary schools, and reopened the debate over what constitutes acceptable content in children’s books. The controversy was first reported by Publishers Weekly, a trade magazine.

On electronic mailing lists like Librarian.net, dozens of literary blogs and pages on the social-networking site LiveJournal, teachers, authors and school librarians took sides over the book. Librarians from all over the country, including Missoula, Mont.; upstate New York; Central Pennsylvania; and Portland, Ore., weighed in, questioning the role of the librarian when selecting — or censoring, some argued — literature for children.

“This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind, Dana Nilsson, a teacher and librarian in Durango, Colo., wrote on LM_Net, a mailing list that reaches more than 16,000 school librarians. “How very sad.

The book has already been banned from school libraries in a handful of states in the South, the West and the Northeast, and librarians in other schools have indicated in the online debate that they may well follow suit. Indeed, the topic has dominated the discussion among librarians since the book was shipped to schools.

Pat Scales, a former chairwoman of the Newbery Award committee, said that declining to stock the book in libraries was nothing short of censorship.

“The people who are reacting to that word are not reading the book as a whole, she said. “That’s what censors do — they pick out words and don’t look at the total merit of the book.

If it were any other novel, it probably would have gone unnoticed, unordered and unread. But in the world of children’s books, winning a Newbery is the rough equivalent of being selected as an Oprah’s Book Club title. Libraries and bookstores routinely order two or more copies of each year’s winners, with the books read aloud to children and taught in classrooms.

“The Higher Power of Lucky was first published in November by Atheneum/Richard Jackson Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, accompanied by a modest print run of 10,000. After the announcement of the Newbery on Jan. 22, the publisher quickly ordered another 100,000 copies, which arrived in bookstores, schools and libraries around Feb. 5.

Reached at her home in Los Angeles, Ms. Patron said she was stunned by the objections. The story of the rattlesnake bite, she said, was based on a true incident involving a friend’s dog.

And one of the themes of the book is that Lucky is preparing herself to be a grown-up, Ms. Patron said. Learning about language and body parts, then, is very important to her.

“The word is just so delicious, Ms. Patron said. “The sound of the word to Lucky is so evocative. It’s one of those words that’s so interesting because of the sound of the word.

Ms. Patron, who is a public librarian in Los Angeles, said the book was written for children 9 to 12 years old. But some librarians countered that since the heroine of “The Higher Power of Lucky is 10, children older than that would not be interested in reading it.

“I think it’s a good case of an author not realizing her audience, said Frederick Muller, a librarian at Halsted Middle School in Newton, N.J. “If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn’t want to have to explain that.

Authors of children’s books sometimes sneak in a single touchy word or paragraph, leaving librarians to choose whether to ban an entire book over one offending phrase.

In the case of “Lucky, some of them take no chances. Wendy Stoll, a librarian at Smyrna Elementary in Louisville, Ky., wrote on the LM_Net mailing list that she would not stock the book. Andrea Koch, the librarian at French Road Elementary School in Brighton, N.Y., said she anticipated angry calls from parents if she ordered it. “I don’t think our teachers, or myself, want to do that vocabulary lesson, she said in an interview. One librarian who responded to Ms. Nilsson’s posting on LM_Net said only: “Sad to say, I didn’t order it for either of my schools, based on ‘the word.’

Booksellers, too, are watchful for racy content in books they endorse to customers. Carol Chittenden, the owner of Eight Cousins, a bookstore in Falmouth, Mass., said she once horrified a customer with “The Adventures of Blue Avenger by Norma Howe, a novel aimed at junior high school students. “I remember one time showing the book to a grandmother and enthusing about it, she said. “There’s a chapter in there that’s very funny and the word ‘condom’ comes up. And of course, she opens the book right to the page that said ‘condom.’

It is not the first time school librarians have squirmed at a book’s content, of course. Some school officials have tried to ban Harry Potter books from schools, saying that they implicitly endorse witchcraft and Satanism. Young adult books by Judy Blume, though decades old, are routinely kept out of school libraries.

Ms. Nilsson, reached at Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango, Colo., said she had heard from dozens of librarians who agreed with her stance. “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship, she said. “But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.

“At least not for children, she added.

I deduce from this that Ms. Nilsson does not consider the following to be purveyors of "quality literature":- james Joyce nor to D. H. Lawrence nor Aristophanes, never mind Chaucer, Rabelais, Shakespear or Burns. Then there was that book that mentioned “breasts *

* The Song of Songs which is Solomons Chapter 8, verse 1 (A.K.A. The Christian Bible) - does this also fall under the ban?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:05 pm

Seems like a load of balls to me.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:13 pm

I saw this discussion on the View - Good - bad or ugly, I don't understand why the word scrotum was necessary.

I don't think children need to know all the body parts by age 7.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:18 pm

This is asinine.

How many more years have to go by before kids know the appropriate term for all body parts? Scrotum in my opinion is an ugly word surpassed only by "balls." Yet is is the correct word. In the third and fourth grade my kids would know about breasts and testicles and penii and uterii; how long are we supposed to wait before we stop saying "down there?!"

So these dumb chickensh*t teachers (and that word I feel is very fitting for cowards such as them) shunned an otherwise possibly good book because it actually said the proper word for "down there."

This is one reason why I support homeschooling.

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:21 pm

RedGlitter;562854 wrote: how long are we supposed to wait before we stop saying "down there?!"

Down where?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:23 pm

RED

I understand what your saying - and agree. But at what age to you want your kids to know ?

I still like the innocents of a 5 yr old.

Patsy

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:46 pm

Patsy, I know everyone is different in how they raise their kids but I would have mine know as soon as possible. I don't believe in using baby language for children, you know, pee-pee and boobies, past a very young age. That type thing. Not that I want to sound like a doctor to my kids, I just think when the body parts come up in conversation, that it's okay to use the official words. I mean every boy knows he has *something * there so why not call it a scrotum?

To shun a book because it actually used the right word for a part of one's body is like saying that part is "bad." I knew a lot of the terminology by the time I was about five or six. My mom and dad rarely censored anything and when I asked about babies, I was told the basic truth; not the "daddy plants a seed in mommy's tummy" stuff. Maybe that's why this book thing makes me so irritated. I think it insults kids' intelligence.

Er....sorry about the life story.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:01 pm

I don't care for censorship of this kind, but most especially over a word that is the correct word to use for the body part. I'm with Red...there's no point in teaching kids habits that they will have to unlearn later. I don't think it damages the innocence of a five-year-old to know that "scrotum" is correct and "peepee" or "dingle" or some other idiotic euphemism isn't.

Besides, this is a symptom of a much more insidious problem. Using euphemisms for body parts teaches children that these parts of the body are dirty, or bad, or that it's better to pretend that they (the body parts) aren't there. To my mind, and to the thinking of some respected psychologists, this kind of coy prissiness simply teaches that sex is bad. There are ways to teach children that private parts should be private (an absolutely essential concept to communicate) while at the same time instilling respect and a healthy understanding of these parts of the body.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:05 pm

RED

You said it - everyone raises their kids differently, thats why this book has so much controversy.

I see nothing wrong with explaining to a child, if & when the child asked.

So I guess I answered my own question on what age - its when the child asked, and some are more inquisitive than others.

When discussed on the View - Elizabeth was appalled and refused to say the "word" while reading the book. I was screaming at her & told my husband why not say the correct word for body parts etc.? So I agree with you on that baby talk - can't stand that.

It's better to hear it at home .

Patsy

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:24 pm

Hmm. My son doesn't know scrotum, we taught him testicles when he was younger.

Personally - I am rather tired of the "Moral Majority" dictating what our children can and can not learn.

Between this and the book about the male penquins it certainly sounds like "the establishment" would love to keep our children not only ignorant but intolerant.

I wonder what is being said about these books in Japan? If I remember correctly - the educational system in Japan is considerably better then that in the U.S.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:37 pm

flopstock;562885 wrote: It's her explanation for her use of the word that cracks me up...:wah:

Yeah, wouldn't you think that one time, the writer could break out her thesaurus and find a more appropriate word? I mean, delicious? Okay, now that makes it sound pornish.

libertine · Post by **libertine** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:37 pm

But she didn't use 'delicious' in the actual book..only in her explanation of her use of '"THE WORD". What a bunch of crap!!! Kids watch t.v. and movies that use worse language. (with or without parents consent) Remids me of Rhett Butler saying "Frankly, dear, I don't give a damn" (gasp) and the controversy it supposedly created!!!

As a Newberry book, it has to have some merit. We can be sure it's not drivel!! And probably has ten times as many readers now than it would have had otherwise...parents not being apt to buy books for their kids when they can buy them video games instead. But give it a little PR and away we go!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:38 pm

BH672;562857 wrote: Down where?

Down "there" being the euphemism people use for genitals. And isn't genitals the grossest word? Ick.

saffy · Post by **saffy** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:34 am

Does Ron say bloody hell? I know he did in the film and so on..and in HP and GOF film he said **** off.

In the books however I can't remember him actually saying the words.

JK seems to get over this by saying something along the lines of "Ron used a word that Harry was certain Mrs Weasley wouldn't of approved of.":D

saffy · Post by **saffy** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:34 am

Ron does say git a lot though..thats a good word to roll off the tongue.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:42 am

I prefer euphemisms for all them parts.

that's why it's cool that guys name their parts, makes it easy.....

:wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:45 am

Sing this:

Scrotum, scrotum

it's my wrinkly crinkly bag of skin

scrotum, scrotum

it's the thing I keep my testes in

Well it's wrinkly and its crinklly

and its covered in hair

But I don't know what I'd do if it was not there

scrotum scrotum

it's my wrinkly crinkly bag of skin:D

saffy · Post by **saffy** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:47 am

No he said it in the film..not the book I meant.

My daughter has them on CD read by Stephen Fry and they're brilliant..plus I read them to her 1 chapter a night over the school holidays 3 years ago...that took some doing.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:50 am

YZGI;563317 wrote: Sing this:

Scrotum, scrotum

it's my wrinkly crinkly bag of skin

scrotum, scrotum

it's the thing I keep my testes in

Well it's wrinkly and its crinklly

and its covered in hair

But I don't know what I'd do if it was not there

scrotum scrotum

it's my wrinkly crinkly bag of skin:D

I just know I'm going to be out in public by myself and THAT is going to pop into my head!

:wah:

thanks.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:56 am

sunny104;563324 wrote: I just know I'm going to be out in public by myself and THAT is going to pop into my head!

:wah:

thanks.
It's a head sticker allright.

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:00 am

I don't know about you guys, but for me it's plum embarassing to be watching TV in mixed company and have one of those silly feminine products commercials come on the tube.

Can you imagine how a young boy would feel if that word was said in mixed company when the tittering started?

We are all thinking with adult minds, not seven year old minds. Everything is embarassing at that age.

I think she should have used another body part. I agree with Pinky on that. Why start all this controversy in the first place. Isn't it the parents that should tell what these body parts names are? If your child is too embarassed to use the real term, are you going to use an easier word or force them to use the adult medical term for the part?

Won't you do what is easier and safer for your child?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:08 am

It is only embarassing to a young child because we, as a society, have gone to such lengths to use euphanisms instead of the correct terminology.

My son was taught the word penis since he was a toddler. We never used cutesy words with him. He is quite comfortable with the word penis - although I must say, we don't generally talk about male genitallia over dinner.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:14 am

911;563419 wrote: I don't know about you guys, but for me it's plum embarassing to be watching TV in mixed company and have one of those silly feminine products commercials come on the tube.

Can you imagine how a young boy would feel if that word was said in mixed company when the tittering started?

We are all thinking with adult minds, not seven year old minds. Everything is embarassing at that age.

I think she should have used another body part. I agree with Pinky on that. Why start all this controversy in the first place. Isn't it the parents that should tell what these body parts names are? If your child is too embarassed to use the real term, are you going to use an easier word or force them to use the adult medical term for the part?

Won't you do what is easier and safer for your child?

I totally agree with you!

everyone should do whatever suits them and their family the best. :-6

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:16 am

YZGI;563328 wrote: It's a head sticker allright.

it is when you set it to the tune of the old Slinky commercials!!!

:wah:

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:27 am

It's not a book I'd want to read to my son. But then again i want him to be a kid, not a mini-adult.

oh and Sunny, that's the song I had playing in my head when reading YZGI's post.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:40 am

I agree with Patsy on this one- I would like to explain to my daugter what a scrotum is when she asks- considering she doesn't have one! I don't want someone else teaching my kids such private parts of the body! I too agree with homeschooling- I was homeschooled all through high school

911 · Post by **911** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:29 pm

Hey, Sweet, Gotta ask you this. . . a little off topic but, is Fred Vegas a real town?

If so, is it named after some poor fool with that name?

Just curious. :-3

Twilight · Post by **Twilight** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:40 pm

So I am new and I will only be able to use this excuse for a short period of time so I will use it till its blue in the face. Basically be nice to me for a while.

But I have to say, this is silly. I mean it’s a scrotum, its not like the book says “salty ball bag.

I was on YouTube the other day looking at English Bulldogs (my sis is buying one so wanted to find a cute vid to send her) and I came across one that was flagged. I thought to myself, “is this going to be animal porn, I don’t want to see that shit¦.but me being a sick individual I went ahead. Turns out some moron flagged it because for a split second a kid was holding up the puppy and the you saw the dogs genitals for a moment. I mean it wasn’t full on zoom in stuff or anything, and if it was¦.it was dog’s bollocks!

So yeah, basically¦its all bollocks.