Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The drunk wasn't in an alleyway when the word is spoken -- he was at an AA meeting, and the child is eavesdropping by listening outside the building. Perhaps he is attempting to use a bit better language at the meeting than he might otherwise do. >>They should err on the side of not taking positions.<< And yet, they'd have to take a position to not include books that contain any refereces to violence, drugs or alcoholism. Treasure Island is history.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 But when one looks at the outcome, Toonie, taking a position to NOT do something is in effect NOT taking a position - or being neutral, which is just what schools should do. I am curious too as to why people always just roll over and accept the word of "experts" such as the Newberry Awards, without checking into who makes up the boards of such organizations, what their criteria are, what their agenda may be. Not that there necessarily even is one, but anytime somebody brings up the views of some austere organization with a well-known name, everyone grows silent and there is this sort of reverence which says "Well, if Newberry says it's good, then it must be good!" And again, I'm not saying if this book is good or bad, just that it contains subject matter which is controversial - or if it wasn't, we wouldn't even have it as a post here. So, that's where schools need to be neutral and take actions which keep the different wants and needs of all parents and students in mind.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>being neutral, which is just what schools should do. << But what defines neutrality? I used the example of Treasure Island, there are countless other "classics" that delve into darker realms. Is being neutral leaving those off the shelves of school libraries as well? I'm not saying anything goes as far as school libraries are concerned. Of course there are books that are not intended for younger readers. But from the excerpts I've read, this book seems okay to me. >>it contains subject matter which is controversial - or if it wasn't, we wouldn't even have it as a post here.<< The reason we're discussing it here isn't the subject matter at all. It's because the inclusion of a single word caused an outcry.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Oh - well I've moved beyond the scrotum, Toonie. I suggest you do likewise! (-;
Originally Posted By JohnS1 As for Treasure Island - this was a traditional good versus evil book, yet with the message that even among bad people, there were glimmers of good. If this is the message of the book in this post, then it is probably a good book. I won't judge it without having read it completely. But I think it takes the passage of time to decide whether something is a classic or a wannabe classic. Working at a book store subjects me to all sorts of people who come in and buy the trashiest romance or men's action books and say, "Boy, he/she is the best writer ever." Not that I am setting myself up as some sort of judge as to what is good or not. As one of the other workers there is in the habit of saying, "Well, at least they're reading." But sometimes I can't help but wonder if that is necessarily a good thing. There are some things we set up in our society as sacrosanct. The right to read whatever we damn well please is one of those things. And, as a card-carrying graduate with a journalism degree, I know all about the Fourth Estate and the freedom of the press and all that. But somehow, I can't help but think that reading - like tv, like sports, like movies and all other forms of contemporary entertainmment - has slowly evolved into satisfying the lowest common denominator; has turned into an industry which provides people with whatever it is they demand, regardless how mindless or violent or perverted or just insipid that material may be. I guess my point is that I have become quite a cynic insofar as the reading public's choice of reading material.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I have no idea who comprises the panel that decides on the Newberry Award, but I remember the books I read as a kid that had won the award, and all but one (which I thought was terribly boring) were excellent. I'm glad to hear, John, that you wouldn't judge the book without reading the whole thing - perhaps there is indeed a positive message overall, or perhaps it's just very well written. The only "controversy" is over a single word, which seems a mighty small matter compared to the book as a whole, and to my mind, a mighty small reason to ban it from one's library.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Oh - well I've moved beyond the scrotum, Toonie. I suggest you do likewise! (-;<< LOL! I do try. >>I won't judge it without having read it completely.<< That's fair enough. But I am not sure some of the people having the outcry are willing to take that step. They heard a word that caused discomfort and sprang, which is too often the case with these sorts of things. >>But somehow, I can't help but think that reading - like tv, like sports, like movies and all other forms of contemporary entertainmment - has slowly evolved into satisfying the lowest common denominator; has turned into an industry which provides people with whatever it is they demand, regardless how mindless or violent or perverted or just insipid that material may be.<< I can't disagree that that is too often the case.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>And by the way, it is less the word that bothers me than just the tone of the story in question. It's a real downer in my opinion and not necessary to acquaint kids with the world of drugs and violence and alcoholism.<< But if kids are already acquainted with that world, doesn't it make sense to provide them with stories set in that world, rather than in some idealized world that they can't relate to? As an urban child, I remember being very frustrated by the fact that so much of the reading material I was presented with seemed to be geared towards rural children of an earlier generation. Not to pick on DVC_Dad and melekawhosits ;-), but wouldn't it make sense that a public school in Seattle and a religious school in Georgia might need different books in their libraries? Where did we get this notion that there are universal standards for what is appropriate for all children of a particular age?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< As to the "naughty" word in question, I am quite sure every kid on the playground hears references to it dozens of times a day, and not using medical terms either. >>> Perhaps in your world. I am quite certain that my female second grader has never heard this word. What age group is the book written for anyhoo?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< I don't know. This book won the Newberry Award, which is supposed to be for the best children's book of the year, right? So presumably this is a very good book, compelling story, etc. etc. I'd be more apt to say "why banish a really good book from your library on the basis of one word?" >>> Um.... because maybe you don't want your young children to read it? Der.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<And this was judged the best children's book of the year. I wouldn't ban it based on one word.>>> This logic only applies if you agree to let other people judge what is best for YOUR kids. I don't do that, therefore, I don't want it on the elementary school shelves. I don't care if it won "Best Book of All Time" if I don' want my kids reading it, I have that right. This logic that some of you people are the exact reason that my kids do not go to public school summed up in a nutshell.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Schools should be neutral, that's all. They should err on the side of not taking positions>> How is removing a book from a shelf being neutral and not taking a position? I have read many, many Newberry books. I loved nearly all of them. I was just at Barnes and Noble with my daughter on Monday showing her my favorite Newberry books, showing her the ones that I STILL love. The librarians aren't mad about the plot of this book, they're upset about the word "scrotum". If they had other problems then they should have complained about those. They didn't, they complained about a word and I think that makes them fools. Why would I want a fool deciding what my child sees? Sure, a person who is so upset by the word scrotum most likely won't harm my child by using a word that I do find offensive but keeping the book out of the library that MY TAX DOLLARS pays for is annoying. It isn't HER store or HER library. She can do whatever she wants with those. How many kids won't even know the book exists because it isn't in the school library? Not every kid in the world goes to bookstores and the public library. To some children, their school library is their only resource. I guess those kids are out of luck because this librarian has chosen to NOT be neutral and has decided to take a position.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< I am curious too as to why people always just roll over and accept the word of "experts" such as the Newberry Awards, without checking into who makes up the boards of such organizations, what their criteria are, what their agenda may be. >>> Bravo!!! A voice of reason. I never take ANYTHING at face value because some supposed self righteious expert thinks HE or SHE knows better than I do, what is best for MY children. As I have stated before, I'm not a huge fan of PhD "docs" / psycho babblers... they all seem to put more spin on things than Bill OReily does. I put many of them almost down with chiropractors. I don't care what awards the book has "won." Not only that, to say "the book won this award so we should allow it in the schools is rediculous." That is like saying that "President Bush says we should go to war so hey let's all go and let's not think for ourselves, afterall he is the President." I am certain that you Tooney can see my logic in this example. At the "end of the day" there is only one pair of people to answer for how my children turn out...that is my wife and myself. Therefore we make ALL the decisions of what goen into our children's minds as long as we are able.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<< This logic that some of you people are the exact reason that my kids do not go to public school summed up in a nutshell. >>>> Maybe I need to go back and take an English class or three LOL!
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Bravo!!! A voice of reason. I never take ANYTHING at face value because some supposed self righteious expert thinks HE or SHE knows better than I do, what is best for MY children.>> Except you already said that you'd trust your librarian to make that choice?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<they complained about a word and I think that makes them fools>>> Perhaps not complaining may make them more foolish. ALTHOUGH name calling beats being a fool I guess...
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Apparently calling someone a self-righteous psycho babbler is more noble?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< Except you already said that you'd trust your librarian to make that choice? >>> Yes you are correct. Perhaps saying I would trust NO ONE is a bit of a stretch. Thanks for callling me on that cause I certianly contradicted myself. Let me clear it up. My child's librarian has proven over a long period of years that she has views that are well in line with my own. My kids attend a fairly large, white collar private Christian school, where most of the mom's largest worries are what to wear to tennis today, and most of the dad's are professionals and of course Republicans. Our librarian would get a fast ticket to the unemployment line if she added "such a book" to the collection. What is "such a book" ? I'm not sure I can put a black and white definition on it. However, I am going to review the books and just see if some of the more controversial titles are there...Huck Finn is a great one to start with. Now dont't get all crazy, I'm not going to start a witch hunt that ends with a book burning on FOX News. But at the same time I wouldn' want it said that I support a school filled with hypocracy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Perhaps in your world. I am quite certain that my female second grader has never heard this word.<< You didn't read what I said. >>Um.... because maybe you don't want your young children to read it? Der.<< Der? Okaay... >>I don't care if it won "Best Book of All Time" if I don' want my kids reading it, I have that right. This logic that some of you people are the exact reason that my kids do not go to public school summed up in a nutshell.<< You have that right in a public school as well. No one is forced to read this book. If you believe that reading the word 'scrotum' will create discomfort for your child or yourself, you simply don't let them read that book. If you don't like references to alcohol, you can skip Huck Finn and Treasure Island. In "my world" I read with my children a lot when they were younger. Sometimes the books were scary, or sometimes they included references to things we would then discuss these things openly and honestly. I would usually scan ahead so i was prepared, or if it was too much, I'd choose something else. Even us knuckle-draggers who go to public school have some parenting abilities, believe it or not.
