Book banning
The word “scrotum” is on the first page of “The Higher Power of Lucky,” a book that won a prestigious award.
First, I am reminded of a story from my childhood. My mom was pregnant with my little brother, and had explained to me about how he was in her uterus, etc. I was 3-years-old. My grandmother visited at some point while Mom was pregnant, and asked what I thought about a new little brother in my mommy's belly. Well, being the precocious (read:smart ass) child that I was, I haughtily informed Grandma that he was Not in her belly, he was in her U-ter-us.
Well, Grandma was shocked. What sort of 3-year-old was I to know such a naughty word? (Uterus... Yikes!) I'm not exactly sure what Mom's reaction was-probably something between laughter and a grimace. In any case, rather than being banned from my vocabulary, we referred to that particular piece of the female anatomy as 'the U-word' around Grandma thereafter.
--
In the article above about the children's book, I noted several quotes that may or may not be representative of all the people against this book. In each case, they were pretty annoying. First of all, 'scrotum' is a body part. Kids need to learn anatomy... they'll find out sometime. It's not even slang!
Second of all, one quote is of a librarian saying how "They" are trying to push the envelope. ... "They" did not write this book, "Susan Patron" did. Maybe she's simply "Their" tool...
Third, another quote mentions how quality literature does not mention words from male anatomy. Maybe they've missed Shakespeare-granted not for 10-year-olds. (That particular librarian does include the 'at least not for kids' qualification.) But, I'd bet that they have Barbie books in their library espousing such noble concepts as, 'you can still be pretty with freckles.' Must be quality literature. No mention of actual anatomy there.
It might shock Grandma, and I do love Grandma, but that's no good excuse for censorship.
First, I am reminded of a story from my childhood. My mom was pregnant with my little brother, and had explained to me about how he was in her uterus, etc. I was 3-years-old. My grandmother visited at some point while Mom was pregnant, and asked what I thought about a new little brother in my mommy's belly. Well, being the precocious (read:smart ass) child that I was, I haughtily informed Grandma that he was Not in her belly, he was in her U-ter-us.
Well, Grandma was shocked. What sort of 3-year-old was I to know such a naughty word? (Uterus... Yikes!) I'm not exactly sure what Mom's reaction was-probably something between laughter and a grimace. In any case, rather than being banned from my vocabulary, we referred to that particular piece of the female anatomy as 'the U-word' around Grandma thereafter.
--
In the article above about the children's book, I noted several quotes that may or may not be representative of all the people against this book. In each case, they were pretty annoying. First of all, 'scrotum' is a body part. Kids need to learn anatomy... they'll find out sometime. It's not even slang!
Second of all, one quote is of a librarian saying how "They" are trying to push the envelope. ... "They" did not write this book, "Susan Patron" did. Maybe she's simply "Their" tool...
Third, another quote mentions how quality literature does not mention words from male anatomy. Maybe they've missed Shakespeare-granted not for 10-year-olds. (That particular librarian does include the 'at least not for kids' qualification.) But, I'd bet that they have Barbie books in their library espousing such noble concepts as, 'you can still be pretty with freckles.' Must be quality literature. No mention of actual anatomy there.
It might shock Grandma, and I do love Grandma, but that's no good excuse for censorship.
Labels: anatomy, book ban, censorship, language
posted by Sarah @ 9:43 AM
3 Comments:
Interesting. I've been waiting to see which book would join Harry Potter at the top of the we-can't-possibly-allow-that-book-in-here-or-we'll-corrupt-the-children list. I mean, there are some things that could be legitimately offensive (though I'm not advocating censorship), but the mundane (or mistaken) things that people routinely find so objectionable in children's books really floor me. Is that one word seriously the ONLY reason some librarians are banning that book? Good grief.
Yeah, that's what I said. I definitely agree that some things just aren't for children and may be genuinely offensive. I don't think offensive things should be censored for the general public, but sure, they may not belong in elementary or middle school libraries.
Not only was it just one word that got the whole thing started in this case, but this book won the Newbery Medal for children's literature!!
I've learned that in our school library it only takes one parent complaining about something in a book that they find objectionable (is that spelled right?)and it will be pulled, just to keep things calm!!! Some things I don't agree with either, but just because I may not wish Keagan to read it, doesn't mean another parent might mind that their child read it. So I can censor what she reads, but I think it should still be allowed out there! Let each person make up their own mind. Sure miss you guys! Do you love Florida? Was in Houston this weekend, saw your family (and mine).
Post a Comment
<< Home