The newly awarded Newbery prize childrens book, "The Higher Power of Lucky" by Susan Patron created a big controversy in the reading world. Patron referred to a dog's "scrotum" one time in the book. The New York Times article (link at the bottom) reported that, according to the author, one of the purposes of the book is preparing kids to grow up, intending the book for 9-12 year olds. Learning body parts is a major part of it.
Many school librarians are displeased with this book getting such a prestigious award because they feel it is too inappropriate; they do not want to have to explain what a scrotum is to a child. The book is banned in a lot of schools in the south and many other areas are trying to get it banned as well.
I can see why the awarded book has caused a huge upset, but it has to have been a great book. Children are going to have to learn what a scrotum is someday anyway. If a teacher is worried about it, they can warn or get permission from the parents to assign the reading. It would better for a child to be able to ask their teacher and get a right answer than always wonder what it is.
Should "The Higher Power of Lucky" have gotten the award? What are your thoughts on this touchy subject?
Feel free to read the article yourself — http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/books/18newb.html
Sometimes I think that authors just try to push societies limits. The author’s argument that children need to learn the parts of the body is a stretch. I don’t think you even learn the word scrotom until high school, IF you take an anatomy class. It is definitely not a necessity for elementary school students. I don’t know if I think it shouldn’t win an award but I think the author should understand why people might not want this word in a book, or why her argument is ridiculous. After reading the articles about the process of creating a children’s book and seeing that they go through many, many drafts, I have to think the author knew this word would be an issue. So many people read and edit books before they are published, someone would probably mention the possible outcomes of using that word. I just think it probably came to the author’s attention and if she wanted to be eligible for awards like the Caldecott award she should have omitted this one word, unless she thought it was essential to the book (which in a 144 page book doesn’t seem likely).
ReplyDeleteIt should not be up to the author to decide what age group should learn such things. I was not aware what a scrotum was until about 5th grade. Even then the school's sex ed class had upset my mother. She felt that if she wanted me to know those things then she would teach me when she felt it was appropriate, and i agree. The media is taking over and teaching children life lessons before a parent has the chance to. A lot of children's books, cartoons, and movies have a lot more than the ABCs and 123s.The author knew what the word would cause and still submitted the book. I feel the award was given knowing the content of the book, so they felt she deserved it. I can understand libraries not agreeing with the book and having it in school circulation but taking the award away is a bit much. Everything in life will either approved or disapproved. If parents and schools agree the book is not suitable for the library then so be it. Other parents may buy the book for their child, its all about preference. Some parents/people have different preferences than others and the author should not lose an award because of that.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think that banning a book because it uses the word scrotum is ridiculous. It is wrong to limit art because it might make some people uncomfortable. If a child asks, "What's a scrotum?" How hard is it to say that it's a part of the male anatomy? Or bring up a picture of a male dog and point it out? Why do people feel the need to shelter young readers from topics that make them (adults)feel uncomfortable? The United States has a propensity for banning books that cover controversial subject matter, but we need to remember that people have the freedom of expression, and we should stop trying to limit that. Let parents decide if material is too racy or mature for their young children or better yet, let young readers decide for themselves. If we stop limiting what young readers can and can't read based on our values, maybe more young readers will develop an interest in reading.
ReplyDeleteSecond, have we considered that maybe Patron purposefully put the word in her book to generate controversy? It seems to me that when a piece or art is surrounded by controversy, it gets more attention, sells more copies, and makes more money. It would have been very easy to use another word or identify a different part of the dog's anatomy, but if she had done that, would her book be getting the attention that it's getting now?