23 Comments so far

1. bettema February 27th, 2007 4:07 pm

   Thank you Susan for your contribution to education in the United States. The schools need more books like yours to encourage our young people to do more reading and less watching television.

   As a retired teacher I remember how my students loved to hear me reading a good book. This was the best way to build a love for literature. There was always a few parents who had to object to certain words. I had one mother who did not want me to read any Halloween stories as they were works of the devil.

   Those who object to the use of the word”scrotum” would probably be upset if their child wished to take a course in anatomy to become a doctor.

2. Poet February 27th, 2007 5:17 pm

   When my children were preschool age we were determined to teach them the proper body names for their own and the opposite gender’s private body parts.

   We did and once when her mother was taking her to the ladies room to use the toilet she asked my daughter if she was done yet and daughter called out,”all except to wipe my vulva mommy”.

   Unbeknownst to her an assistant editor was several stalls down laughing her head off (and maybe the other end too!)at my 4 year old’s remark. She told her mother later,”I never learned that word till I was in college, good for you for teachiing your litte girl right”

   The only ting funnier than that was watching the look on other parents faces as my prepubescent children would occasionaly correct their friends use of baby talk type euphemisms for such anatomical parts. I now have a 4 year old grand daughter and she is being similarly instructed with, I expect, the same kind of hilarious results for her parents as her mommy had given us.

3. hmoon1 February 28th, 2007 12:02 am

   Susan, thank you for your book, and for your years of service as a librarian. Also thank you for your eloquent defense of reading and its importance in giving us thinking, curious, and well-informed future citizens.

   I am a former library board president and school board member. I am semi-retired, but still do a lot of substitute teaching. A teacher friend of my has been doing a unit on
   banned books for her media class. We discussed, with some amusement, the furor over
   what we felt was totally appropriate language
   for the audience to which your book was intended. I also discussed it with our county library director, who was also somewhat amused.
   But in all seriousness, we have had such battles.
   May you have continued success in your writing
   and your library work.

4. kitty_tc February 28th, 2007 4:02 am

   Oh, but don’t you know that kids kill people and commit suicide if they hear certain words? That’s why massacres have happened every time kids get a hold of dictionaries, because children cannot resist satan’s siren call to look up dirty words. It’s a wonder man has survived this long, the way children self-destruct and go psycho at certain trigger words. We must remain vigilant so our precious future generations don’t spontaneously combust before they’re old enough to be sent off to die in war instead.

   Besides, if children learn the names of parts of their bodies, they might think they’re normal. How will they learn to hate themselves and be ashamed to be human? Without the guilt we instill in them, how will they enslave themselves to our institutions of religion? We have to instill the fear and revulsion of the natural, especially the sexual, or else they might be happy and without hangup or neurosis, and we can’t have that.

   Too much of this, and we’ll catch our children showing feelings… showing feelings of an almost -human- nature!

   This will not do…

5. panamahead February 28th, 2007 8:22 am

   Obviously, its good news when any learning takes place, no matter the audience. But I’m sorry if I’m not comfortable with my child reading aloud the word scrotum during reading time before we go to bed, and then asking me while I’m tucking them in, what scrotum means!

   Call me uncool or not in the know, but I think I’d rather wait until their at least 14, not 9 or 10. What the hells the hurry? As if our society isn’t saturated and infatuated with sex as it is? It can wait, dammit.

   In the meantime, if you want to educate and open their innocent eyes early to the night side of reality then teach them about cerebral palsy, poverty, soliders returning from Iraq, the consequences of lying, etc.

   Theres more than enough stuff to let them in on without having to expose kids to a topic thats inappropriate for their age. So what if they know what its called? Big deal. Teach them not to fear public speaking which is what Americans fear more than death.

   If your going to teach anatomy at any early age, don’t pussyfoot. Teach the whole thing, penis, titties, vagina, anus, butterscotch and everything else you can imagine they’d need to succeed in this world.

   Thank you very much.

6. Bruce Chambers February 28th, 2007 1:28 pm

   As the proud owner/operator of a scrotum, I’m pleased to see that this body part has finally made it into mainstream children’s literature……..body parts can be fun, and educational!

7. lpenek March 1st, 2007 3:28 am

   I agree with panamahead, totally. To think that children won’t come upon the meaning of these concepts/words on their own, in their own good time, is arrogant and assuming. I particularly disagree with the heartbreaking stories like Charlotte’s Web, ostensibly there to teach children about death and separation. Do they need to know so early? I hate it when jaded and disillusioned adults automatically assume that because something is “in the world” that children should have their faces rubbed in it. Kids will learn about death soon enough. Screw Charlotte and Bambe. If you’re so desperate to be a literate figure write something about the big boys. You can use “scrotum” all you want. Scrotum, scrotum, scrotum. Just leave kids alone.

8. activist3 March 1st, 2007 10:33 am

   I am puzzled by Ipenek’s description of a book which contains the word -scrotum as the same as “rubbing their face in it “. I sense that you believe that the authors purpose was strictly to teach the word scrotum as some brutal indoctrination attempt at counter brainwashing. I believe an author chooses their subject and narrative form for many reasons mostly for telling a good story. using the
   word scrotum in this instance (not having read her book) seems tobe her way of treating children as curious and interested beings who she may feel averse to teaching them a hidden shame of their anatomy and to trust that the child when they encounter a word they never read before will ask about it’s meaning.

9. lpenek March 1st, 2007 5:44 pm

   I was focusing less on “scrotum” (I haven’t read the book either and don’t believe I will) than on the gist of her article. Every author wants to show readers new things but to use an adult vantage to impress images on a child before they’re ready is like shooting fish in a barrel (another metaphor that I’m sure you’ll disapprove of).

   I can remember personnally being traumatized by “Charlotte’s Web”. I don’t think that’s too strong a word, I sobbed for days. People need to think before they expose kids to certain material, whether a word or concept. “Scrotum” doesn’t bother me, what kind of bothered me was Patron’s patronizing (sorry, couldn’t help it) rationale.

10. lpenek March 1st, 2007 6:04 pm

    “Give him “Charlotte’s Web” and his heart will burst. He’ll feel empathy in a deep and lasting way.”

    You’re damned right…and maybe a little lingering disthymic depression? Now give me that Newbery!!!

11. activist3 March 2nd, 2007 4:09 pm

    I am sorry you sobbed for days….however I have a grand child who is both your sense that adults are supposed to be careful to the extreme degree that you imply they must, to avoid traumatizing these vulnerable and innocent creatures, is to show an incredible naivete and ignorance of the resilence of the average child. having taught k-5th grades for 9 years I assure you these kids are not going to be fazed all that much by SCROTUM. not when so many of them are pretty impressed with Darth Vader and a whole host of other characters.Ihave a grand child who is both sensitive to cruelty and can laugh out loud at scenes(the attack ones )from the movie Jaws. Go figure!

12. lpenek March 2nd, 2007 5:47 pm

    “Sobbed for days” might have been a little exaggerated, but I can remember being very, very upset. Children may be resilient, but why? Why should they be put through C’s Web? Or Bambi? What kind of sadist thinks it’s cute to make kids weep?

    If seeing people eaten works for your grand kid then fine, but at least he/she is making the decision.

    I “get where you’re coming from”. True, you can’t seal kids in a bubble (well, you can, but then protective services comes and…) It should start with common sense on the part of authors/producers of children’s material.

    Does anyone really have fond memories of CW and Bambi? Why they remain popular is beyond me.

13. activist3 March 3rd, 2007 9:34 am

    you seem to always see this issue in such stark terms “cruelty” ” ” “sobbed ” “weep ” “sadist ” “faces rubbed in it “” shooting fish in a barrel” “arrogant” forgive my amatuer psychologizing but I think you might be overreacting slightly and anticipating that these children will be forced to read this as part of some mandatory reading program…not likely. there is also the question of free choice and trust of the judgemnt of parents who do know their child enough to read it to them or not.

14. activist3 March 3rd, 2007 12:58 pm

    Forgive my bloodyminded impatience with the whole business of being sensitive to chidrens feelings and being so careful and cautious that one becomes afraid lest they do what..? think ,dwell on the realities of loss and fear and dissapointment and heartache and all the other possible reactions to literatures magic and charms.God save us all from the dull and bland catechisms of “Safe ” writing. This is the refuge of the fainthearted. Bravery and abit of good old fashioned strength of mind ain’t bad to be able to call on.

15. lpenek March 4th, 2007 4:16 am

    Boy this is continuing on and on. You have some good points but the error in your reasoning is to apply adult intellectual standards to people who don’t yet have fully formed or mature intellects (ie children).

    I see this issue in stark terms because this is a stark issue: do we submit children to mental anguish before they’re ready? Now you’re going to tell me my reasoning for starkness is stark. I’ll take the chance.

    “God save us all from the dull and bland catechisms of “Safe ” writing. This is the refuge of the fainthearted. Bravery and abit of good old fashioned strength of mind ain’t bad to be able to call on.”

    A very good point…for adult literature. For children’s lit we have to be careful to first consider the nascent minds and sensitivities we’re dealing with. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a child (?) The ironic consequence of your maxim, in my opinion, is that it might weaken a child’s strength of mind. (BTW, I’m NOT referring to SCROTUM, just drop the scrotum, this argument is bigger than that — you can consider that a vulgarity if you want.)

    You know, it’s funny, you’re making me look like a board member for decency standards or something. I never thought I’d be made to look like a prude. If you knew me you’d know why that’s funny. I’m just requesting common sense.

16. activist3 March 4th, 2007 12:09 pm

    I havenot forgotten my chidhood …far from it. but I can look back and reflect on all the varieties of stories I read and I can assure you, I read a hell of a lot of different stuff from fairy tales to history to horror to action comics to romance to mystery…ad nauseum . Ishivered and shook and ceied and laughed and wanted to be superman and brave ..just like all of the characters I identified with. I am 55 y.o. and I’ve taught children to read and draw and I can tell you from being in contact with them that they already posses a pretty vivid imagination and a fully working theatre of their own mind without having to read . The error in your reasoning lies in the hidden assumption that you can protect children from the horros of the world while they are young so completely by avoiding using certain words which you have deemed dangerous to their nascent developing mind. consider this routine scenario…the child being becomming so fearful of strange words that they develop a phobia and an attitude of anxiety to read them lest they break a taboo..sounds strange? happens all the time with the innocent word Hell. teach in a classroom for some time and you will see the power of taboo at work.

17. lpenek March 5th, 2007 4:04 am

    You have a good point that by leaving gaps in the presentation of words or ideas we might create taboos that adversely effect children. But if you take that too far you admit a rather hilarious reductio ad absurdum. You’re essentially creating the mirror image of censorship. Now what material do we dare omit for fear of damaging a child?

    This all becomes too abstract. Besides, it gets away from my first, and only, objection, which I have refined, thanks to you. (Thank you.) To wit: I object to purposely creating noxious experiences for children then rationalizing it by saying it somehow “inoculates” them against real-life situations. Says who? Maybe it just presents bad experiences, and the word “experience” is key to my point.

    The fundamental tenent of your argument is false. I know it is because I can provide existence proofs, millions of them. There are in fact millions of screwed up kids who are that way because of the things they have experienced. You’re about to say that children can always tell the difference between fiction and reality. Tell it to the psychologists. “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”: Your philosophy is straight out of Neitzsche, and your reasons (please review your “strength of mind” post) are a bit too Wagnerian for my taste.

    Nope, sorry, can’t sign off on this one.

18. activist3 March 5th, 2007 10:44 am

    Please define for me in concrete terms what you mean by “noxious experiences”. Since you said that it is the key to your explanation, please elucidate. Please keep in mind we are talking of the act of reading.
    You say there are millions of screwed up kids and that psychologists are able to provide proof of this state. please define for me what you mean by “screwed up kids”. I am in no doubt of the existence of confused ,anxious, alienated kids, is this what you are referring to? Do you believe that they are “screwed up” because they have experienced something noxious in their reading matter? Please forgive my obtuseness and confusion.

19. activist3 March 5th, 2007 12:54 pm

    I looked up the definition of NOXIOUS in the heritage dictionary…”harmful to the mind and morals ” come s from the latin /noxa=damage. Let’s be straight here …do you believe that reading can be damaging to a childs mind and /or morals? and if you do how so ..please explain.

20. lpenek March 6th, 2007 4:28 am

    Oh crud, a careless keystroke and I lost 50 words of my brilliant reply.

    To summarize:

    - I feel like an Eng 1A student who’s had his essay handed back with a C- and “Try Again” scrolled on top
    - Sorry that my ambiguous cute locutions led you to think that I said psychologists can prove anything
    - I meant the opposite
    - I tend to use smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that I’m not very eloquent

    Now back to my main response, please forgive the stream-of-consciousness style:
    Noxious experience and the act of reading: Was “Mein Kampf” a noxious read and did it affect the German people? Has not the Koran inspired countless young Muslims to strap explosives to their bodies? Yes, I’m quite award these are “acts of reading.” Are you denying the power of the written word?

    Can kids be “damaged” by reading? “Damaging to a child”: a pretty loaded expression and probably so stigmatized that no useful discussion can be drawn from it. By way of analogy: A person lets you borrow a lawn mower. You say “Will it be damaged if I run the wrong type of gas in it?” They say: “No, but why would you want to do that? It will blow black smoke and generally be upset.” In a nutshell that’s my whole argument, and nothing more. THAT is why I emphasize “experience.” Kids aren’t Big Mac’s, commodities to spit out, and the end most definitely doesn’t justify the means. Their journey is the reward and their peace of mind is sacred, a sacred trust. Hell, they have the rest of their lives to read Catcher in the Rye and watch Midnight Express.

    And this is not about censorship. I hate it. I don’t particularly like porn but I’m not about to parade in front of Hussler with placards.

    As a final statement: If I was a parent (I’m not) there’s no way in hell I would give my child (my hated–) Charlotte’s Web to read. If he/she found it on their own and read it, fine, but I won’t be the instigator of their misery.

    I think perhaps my claim is more banal than will really interest you. We seem to have a fundamental disconnect, but I think you’re in for a disappointment; so maybe it’s time to let the janitors mop the floors. Everyone else left the lecture hall hours ago, and now they’re home kicking back a beer and watching sitcoms…
    Hey, I’m pretty good. No eloquence my ass.
    

21. lpenek March 6th, 2007 5:04 am

    Butting in again, I just did a google on Charlotte’s Web. Here’s a blurb from a review of the 2006 TV production:

    “The result, with its gently contemporized dialogue that still remains quite true to White’s original wording, offers a family-friendly primer on the cycle of life that’s careful to not overplay the inherent sentiment.”

    Note the last clause. Who’s being protective now? And why? And perhaps a bit naive toward that tauted child perception?

    DOWN WITH CW!!! DOWN WITH CW!!! (Torchlit procession through the streets)…

22. activist3 March 7th, 2007 2:32 pm

    PLease forgive the sophomoric belief that thoughts are being expressed through your use of language but you veer and careen all over the place. I am not arguing that you as a parent do not have the right to read or not read what you choose to your children . I don’t care a wit about your choices.I was seeking a bit of clarity over your true objections to Patrons’ use of the word scrotum.I now understand much more clearly. Correct me if I am wrong …your exprience with CW convinced you of the paricularly prickly and delicate nature of reading and its hazards. yes? I appreciate your patience at answering all my questions and your compliment about refining your thoughts and ideas. I do not doubt the power of reading ,but you would have to agree much depends on ones’ interpretation ..yes?PLease forgive the impression thatthat I am grading your writing . I am only seeking to comprehend you ideas and thoughts not enter into ideological warfare. Thanks for your replies.

23. bnpysytovaxe December 26th, 2007 8:55 pm

    titxukokakipi…

    expetiwizivi…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)