Banning books in schools (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,575
    Reaction score
    15,261
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Online
    Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread
    =========================

    On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.

    Particularly books for children and teens.

    Why else would people like me spend so much time and energy writing them?

    Why else would censors spend so much time and energy trying to keep them out of kids’ hands?

    In a country where the average adult is reading fewer and fewer books, it’s a surprise to find Americans arguing so much about them.

    In this election year, parents and politicians — so many politicians — are jumping into the fray to say how powerful books can be.

    Granted, politicians often make what I do sound like witchcraft, but I take this as a compliment.

    I’ll admit, one of my first thoughts about the current wildfire of attempted censorship was: How quaint.

    Conservatives seemed to be dusting off their playbook from 1958, when the only way our stories could get to kids was through schools and libraries.

    While both are still crucial sanctuaries for readers, they’re hardly the only options. Plenty of booksellers supply titles that are taken off school shelves.

    And words can be very widely shared free of charge on social media and the rest of the internet. If you take my book off a shelf, you keep it away from that shelf, but you hardly keep it away from readers.

    As censorship wars have raged in so many communities, damaging the lives of countless teachers, librarians, parents and children, it’s begun to feel less and less quaint.

    This is not your father’s book censorship…..

    Here’s something I never thought I’d be nostalgic for: sincere censors. When my first novel, “Boy Meets Boy,” was published in 2003, it was immediately the subject of many challenges, some of which kept the book from ever getting on a shelf in the first place.

    At the time, a challenge usually meant one parent trying to get a book pulled from a school or a library, going through a formal process.

    I often reminded myself to try to find some sympathy for these parents; yes, they were wrong, and their desire to control what other people in the community got to read was wrong — but more often than not, the challenge was coming from fear of a changing world, a genuine (if incorrect) belief that being gay would lead kids straight to ruination and hell, and/or the misbegotten notion that if all the books that challenged the (homophobic, racist) status quo went away, then the status quo would remain intact.

    It was, in some ways, as personal to them as it was to those of us on the other side of the challenge.

    And nine times out of 10, the book would remain on the shelf.

    It’s not like that now. What I’ve come to believe, as I’ve talked to authors and librarians and teachers, is that attacks are less and less about the actual books.

    We’re being used as targets in a much larger proxy war.

    The goal of that war isn’t just to curtail intellectual freedom but to eviscerate the public education system in this country.

    Censors are scorching the earth, without care for how many kids get burned.

    Racism and homophobia are still very much present, but it’s also a power grab, a money grab. The goal for many is a for-profit, more authoritarian and much less diverse culture, one in which truth is whatever you’re told it is, your identity is determined by its acceptability and the past is a lie that the future is forced to emulate.

    The politicians who holler and post and draw up their lists of “harmful” books aren’t actually scared of our books.

    They are using our books to scare people.

     
    Last edited:
    Sack, do you think it’s wise to start banning children’s books like the Wilma Rudolph story, or the Jackie Robinson story or the poem that was recited at Biden’s inauguration because of a book that you heard was provided to children that was inappropriate? Where was this book provided, and to what age group?

    Or maybe should each local school district deal with cases of inappropriate books as they come up? Local control of the schools used to be a thing.

    Librarians across the nation are being smeared as “groomers” and harassed. It’s extremely upsetting to them. This idea that our school libraries are evil is a stupid and dangerous lie.
     
    The public library has no time nor the funds to notify parents. If the parents are so paranoid that their kid will see something they shouldn’t they shouldn’t send their kid to the library at all.
    They have time to gather financial data to offer "free" lunches, time to file social security cards, drivers licenses and leases. They regularly send permission slips for field trips, as well as notices of fees due. All they have to to is have one more form among the dozens parents fill out at registration for the parent to opt-in, or opt-our of notification. Combine that with the form giving permission for kids to appear in media. They can even have the people manning the registration booths tell parents "it's easier if you just opt out."

    Sorry, I'm a teacher. Doesn't mean I know much more than you, but I do know what schools are able to do.
    If you‘re talking about schools, I would imagine you can tell them your kid can’t check out books or tell their teacher that you don’t want them to have books.
    So, your actual solution is that parent either allow the schools to give any kind of books to their kids or no books at all? If that is to be the policy, it is well past time to allow parents to take their kids to private school and have vouchers for the money their local public school is given to cut parents out of the process.
    Or, you know - here’s a thought - if your child sees something that causes questions, you could use it as a learning experience. You could discuss it with your child and tell them your point of view. That seems a lot more reasonable to me than teaching your child that you don’t value books, which is sort of what they would assume if you kept them out of the library.
    I love books and my kids grew up in a house full of books. What you describe is exactly what I did with my kids. My kids.

    But parents - not me, and not some librarian who just graduated from a university taking guidance from the AASL - should be the decision makers for their children's reading.

    Take "Adventures of Huckleberry Fynn." I think it is a great book, great way to bring history alive, and that the use of the racial slur it contains would be an excellent place to start a learning experience such as you describe. But if Black parents said that they did not want their eight year old or even their high schooler exposed to that book, how could I tell they that they are wrong? Give me the sentence: "Black mom and dad, you are wrong to not want your child to read a book with that racial slur because ___________________, so you get no say."
     
    Snark is in your screen name, so I'm assuming you embrace snark. Given that, let me answer your following question with as much snark as I can muster.
    If the author of Lawn Boy did not think that book should be in school libraries, doesn't that mean that one need not be a right wing racist bigot transfer homophobe knuckle dragging Christian Fundy in order to oppose certain books being in school libraries?
    Need they be? Not at all, but far too often the people who want to ban books are, as you so eloquently stated, "a right wing racist bigot transfer homophobe knuckle dragging Christian Fundy."

    The stench from your red herring cannery is quite noxious, just like the snark in my reply above.

    Anyone can do snark, it's not impressive. You don't have to be smart or knowledgeable to do snark. Snark is an emotional response, not a rational one. Snark causes conflict, it doesn't resolve it. Snark is used to derail a discussion, not to participate in it. Snark is weak, not strong. Snark is fear based chest thumping, not confidence.

    Having said what I think of snark, I'll continue completely sincere and snark free.
    Is it possible that there are some books which are appropriate for kids to read with parental supervision and guidance, but not necessarily to be made available to them with no such guidance?
    The question of which books kids should be allowed to read without guidance is not the important question.

    The important question is who gets to decide what books are appropriate or not for kids to read and why do they get to decide that?

    Parents who get a booked banned are infringing on the rights of parents who want their kids to have access to the book, so how do we reconcile that?

    Does every parent have the right to get a booked banned, because they think it's inappropriate for their kids?

    If every parent doesn't have that right, which parents do and why do only those parents have that right?
    Why do you think and organization like the American Library Association decided that it was a wonderful book for kids?
    I don't know that they actually decided that. I only know that you are claiming they decided that. Saying a book should be available for kids is not the same as saying it's "a wonderful book for kids."

    Assuming they actually decided what you say they did, why do you think they decided that?

    Did they try to force any kids to read it? Saying it's "a wonderful book for kids" does not make kids read it.
     
    Last edited:
    They have time to gather financial data to offer "free" lunches, time to file social security cards, drivers licenses and leases. They regularly send permission slips for field trips, as well as notices of fees due. All they have to to is have one more form among the dozens parents fill out at registration for the parent to opt-in, or opt-our of notification. Combine that with the form giving permission for kids to appear in media. They can even have the people manning the registration booths tell parents "it's easier if you just opt out."

    Sorry, I'm a teacher. Doesn't mean I know much more than you, but I do know what schools are able to do.

    So, your actual solution is that parent either allow the schools to give any kind of books to their kids or no books at all? If that is to be the policy, it is well past time to allow parents to take their kids to private school and have vouchers for the money their local public school is given to cut parents out of the process.

    I love books and my kids grew up in a house full of books. What you describe is exactly what I did with my kids. My kids.

    But parents - not me, and not some librarian who just graduated from a university taking guidance from the AASL - should be the decision makers for their children's reading.

    Take "Adventures of Huckleberry Fynn." I think it is a great book, great way to bring history alive, and that the use of the racial slur it contains would be an excellent place to start a learning experience such as you describe. But if Black parents said that they did not want their eight year old or even their high schooler exposed to that book, how could I tell they that they are wrong? Give me the sentence: "Black mom and dad, you are wrong to not want your child to read a book with that racial slur because ___________________, so you get no say."
    The reason I went with the all or nothing was because you objected to kids bringing their books home for mom and dad to check out what they got - you said they could read it on the bus. Personally, I think that if parents are that picky they should have a family rule - the kid can’t read any book until they bring it home and the parents get to see it. It’s not up to the school to parent your kids.

    Your last paragraph is 🤦‍♀️. You are suggesting that books be banned-not me. I am arguing for parents actually taking responsibility for their kids. When anyone demands that books be removed they are taking away some parents’ choices. When books are removed because one or two or even 20 parents demand it, they are attempting to parent other people’s children. If they don’t want their kids to read a certain book, then their kids shouldn’t read that book. But they shouldn’t get to decide for every other child in the school.

    When I said the public library doesn’t have time or money to keep a list of books for your child, i meant just that, the public library. Not the school library.
     
    Sack, do you think it’s wise to start banning children’s books like the Wilma Rudolph story, or the Jackie Robinson story or the poem that was recited at Biden’s inauguration because of a book that you heard was provided to children that was inappropriate? Where was this book provided, and to what age group?
    No, I don't think those books should be banned, nor that poem. But that's my opinion, others will have theirs. Those opinions are just as valid as mine.
    Or maybe should each local school district deal with cases of inappropriate books as they come up? Local control of the schools used to be a thing.
    You mean before organizations like the AFT, and Progress PAC, started funding school board candidates?

    Even with that outside influence, I'm fine with local school boards making decisions like that, if they will stop trying to silence parents who show up to speak at meetings, and arresting them if they do not immediately comply. I also see no role for the FBI in local school board disagreements. Call me crazy.
    Librarians across the nation are being smeared as “groomers” and harassed. It’s extremely upsetting to them. This idea that our school libraries are evil is a stupid and dangerous lie.
    Then those librarians should police themselves, as other professionals do.

    They need to wise up and say to themselves, "We graduated from probably the most liberal part of the liberal arts colleges at our universities, except maybe the various ________ studies departments. We can't expect parents who are Engineering, Business, and Math, tech, and science majors to think like we do. Nor will parents who are plumbers, welders, small business owners, police, firefighters, drivers, and home parents think the same.

    "But they are no less educated than we, and they are the boses of their children's education, not us. We can guide the children only within the parameters that parents set for us.

    "Let's be real. We should have known that all this kid sex stuff wouldn't go over too well."
     
    Well, I can see this is going nowhere. You want to control what books my kids read, that’s the bottom line here. It’s not going to go well for your POV, because in America we don’t try to control other people like that. And all your parroting of lies you’ve been told doesn’t make what you want to do any more palatable. It’s still exerting control over other people‘s lives, for things you have no right to try to control.
     
    I assume Democrats would hate it because it seemed to advocate a form of capitalism. Actually not a form of capitalism just basic capitalism.
    ... and there it is. It doesn't take long.

    Ironically, it is the GOP who's been on the warpath against corporations, you know, the bastions of capitalism, the last 6 or so years.
     
    *SNIP* your first paragraph due to repetiveness. Agree to disagree.
    Your last paragraph is 🤦‍♀️. You are suggesting that books be banned-not me. I am arguing for parents actually taking responsibility for their kids.
    So, a black family has a child bring home Huck Fynn and say, "Look, in this book a white boy calls a black man a N!&&#@, but they are friends. The white boy even says he loves his friend N!&&#@ Jim and will even go to Heck rather than abandon him." I think that family has a reason to complain.
    Snark is in your screen name, so I'm assuming you embrace snark. Given that, let me answer your following question with as much snark as I can muster.
    Let me clarify. I got that name back when I used to be pretty Snarky. I told a poster that in one particular reply I was not being Snarky. He said, "Yes you were you snarky sack of sheet." So I adopted the name. I try very hard not to be snarky, but too many people take any disagreement at all as an attack. Even violence.

    Since I have never been snarky to you, I will *SNIP* the parts of your reply that are snarky, and we can start fresh.
    Having said what I think of snark, I'll continue completely sincere and snark free.

    The question of which books kids should be allowed to read without guidance is not the important question.

    The important question is who gets to decide what books are appropriate or not for kids to read and why do they get to decide that?

    Parents who get a booked banned are infringing on the rights of parents who want their kids to have access to the book, so how do we reconcile that?
    Through my opt in/opt out idea. That way parents can state at the beginning of the year whether they want to decide which books their kids read, or let the library decide.
    Does every parent have the right to get a booked banned, because they think it's inappropriate for their kids?

    If every parent doesn't have that right, which parents do and why do only those parents have that right?
    Yeah, I understand your point, and it is valid. So I have two solutions. One is the opt in/opt out, which no one seems to want to comment on, and the other I'll described above in post 77.

    It is that librarians police themselves and be aware that with limited libary space, they should be selective. A book about two ten year olds having oral sex is of limited interest to children, so stock more interesting ones instead. Books with racial slurs are likely to offend, so stock historical novels that do not feature them. If they do that, librarians can start to build back trust of parents, and more parents will opt out of parental approval for books checked out.

    I don't know that they actually decided that. I only know that you are claiming they decided that. Saying a book should be available for kids is not the same as saying it's "a wonderful book for kids."
    If they recommended it to school libraries, that would say that they were not neutral on whether kids should read it, whether they used to the word "wonderful" or not.
    Assuming they actually decided what you say they did, why do you think they decided that?
    I can only guess, they did not tell me why.

    My guess is that they decided it was a good book to promote to kids because it depicted male on male sex, and therefore it would teach tolerance to kids. A person who believes that a kid disposed to be intolerant of gay people would be convinced by a graphic depiction of male on male oral sex must have never had kids of their own.
    Did they try to force any kids to read it? Saying it's "a wonderful book for kids" does not make kids read it.
    No, it does not.

    I don't know too many kids who would really be interested in reading a book in which two ten year old boys are explicitely described having oral sex with each other. The author agrees. Yet, school librarians shelve it, and display it prominently during "banned book week," in which kids are encouraged to read books that have been objected to - not banned.

    That idea, that if parents object, you should do it, is pretty juvenile. I picture those librarians in their own youths choosing boyfriends on the basis of which would piss off their dads most.


    When anyone demands that books be removed they are taking away some parents’ choices. When books are removed because one or two or even 20 parents demand it, they are attempting to parent other people’s children. If they don’t want their kids to read a certain book, then their kids shouldn’t read that book. But they shouldn’t get to decide for every other child in the school.
    That's why my opt in/opt out is such a good one. If the black family above calls the library, and the librarian says, "sir, when you registered your child, you opted out of controlling what books your child has access to," the parent will realize their error in being so trusting.
    When I said the public library doesn’t have time or money to keep a list of books for your child, i meant just that, the public library. Not the school library.
    Well, I can agree with you on that one, then. So long as public libraries require parental consent for getting a library card in the first place, as my local ones do. My local libraries don't allow kids to check out R-rated movies (if anyone checks out movies anymore).

    Should they? Should movies like Last Tango in Paris, Clockwork Orange, and Midnight Cowboy be sent home with kids as starting points for learning experiences?

    I don't know that the controversy has much been at public libraries. Maybe over Drag Queen Story Hour, and other "educational" experiences for kids, but that's a different topic.
     
    Last edited:
    How is your opt in or opt out going to work in practice? Do the parents have to supply the librarian with a list of books that they don’t like? Every year? I don’t see people actually doing that. And when the school has one librarian for hundreds of kids, how does this actually work?

    My idea was actually workable. Your kid either opts in to the library, or opts out. If he opts out the parents can supply their own books for the kids to read.

    After reading your comments on your lawn book, and reading the reviews of that book on Amazon, (reviews from actual people, not book reviewers) I’m going to assume that you, in fact, have not read said book, but rather have only read a selected passage. Is that correct?
     
    I try very hard not to be snarky, but too many people take any disagreement at all as an attack.
    I've seen snark in every one of your posts I read today. Announcing to people you're going to *SNIP* their posts seems snarky and passive aggressive. You don't have to tell people you're not quoting everything they wrote. We all understand selective quoting and responses.

    You do more than simply disagree with people.
    Through my opt in/opt out idea.
    It seems you're now saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to get books banned. I agree with that.

    As for your opt in/opt out idea:
    • How are you going to make that work logistically?
    • Are you going to give library staff immunity for when the inevitable administrative error occurs and a child gets a book their parents opted out on?
    • How much data storage will libraries need to keep track of every parents choice on every book in their library for every kid they have?
    • Do you have any idea how many titles the average library carries?
    • How much is it going to cost to secure that database so no one's privacy is violated?
    • Are you going to give library staff immunity for when the database is inevitably breached?
    • Have you done a study to determine how many man hours will be required to implement the program?
    • How much is it going to cost?
    • Who's going to pay for it?
    Same questions if you're envisioning hard copy files instead of a digital database. That's just the first few basic questions that came up for me.
    It is that librarians police themselves and be aware that with limited libary space, they should be selective.
    They are already doing that, but you and others don't like their decisions, so you think they should have to conform to what you and others want.

    Why should they select the books that you want them to select instead of the books that other parents want them to select?

    The same question remains unanswered. Who gets to decide what books kids can read and why do those people get to make that decision?

    No matter how you look at it or explain it, one group is trying to take away other people's access to books that the one group doesn't approve of. That is not what a free society does. That is what an oppressive society does.
    A book about two ten year olds having oral sex is of limited interest to children, so stock more interesting ones instead.
    Where are you getting this from? Why do you think that children aren't interested in Lawn Boy? Have you seen credible statistics on how often it's checked out or read by kids?

    People advocating for parental rights to ban books seem to have a specific problem with children being exposed to anything that shows non-conformative ideas of sexuality as acceptable or promotes equal treatment for all. People have a right to limit they and their children's exposure to it, but they don't have a right to block other people from being exposed to it.
    If they recommended it to school libraries, that would say that they were not neutral on whether kids should read it, whether they used to the word "wonderful" or not.
    That seems like a flawed and tortured assumption on your part. They are most likely just trying to be inclusive of all people, which is what libraries should strive for in a free society.

    How many other books have they recommended that contain homosexual content? Of all the books they've recommended, what's the ratio of books with heterosexual content versus books with homosexual content.

    How many parents support libraries having Lawn Boy? You're focusing on one book and only one point of view on that book as if it's evidence of some broader problem, but you haven't shown there's a broader problem or any verifiable harm to children who have read the book.
    I can only guess, they did not tell me why.
    You could always do some research to find out the reasons they gave for their decision, instead of just guessing.

    Also, what you see as you guessing, seems more like you predetermining without actually knowing.
    A person who believes that a kid disposed to be intolerant of gay people would be convinced by a graphic depiction of male on male oral sex must have never had kids of their own.
    Where have you shown that some people believe this? I don't think anyone thinks that.

    It's pretty wild to think this without any factual support. Honestly, you seem to have a real problem with exposing children to anything that might get them to be accepting of homosexuality, especially male homosexuality. I'm not saying you're homophobic or anything like that. I'm just saying you seem to have biased tunnel vision on this issue.
    No, it does not.

    I don't know too many kids who would really be interested in reading a book in which two ten year old boys are explicitely described having oral sex with each other.
    So no one is making the kids read the books and this is the second time you say kids aren't interested in reading the book.

    So what exactly is the harm in having it available for the few kids that want to read it? I'm not hearing or seeing any evidence of verifiable harm to any children.

    All I'm hearing and seeing is that you and others don't want it to be available to your kids, so you don't want it to be available to any kids. You say you want an opt in/out program, but it really seems like you don't want any kids to be allowed to read it.

    Maybe I'm wrong. Are you okay with libraries having Lawn Boy for kids to read if their parents opt-in to their child reading the book?
    Yet, school librarians shelve it, and display it prominently during "banned book week," in which kids are encouraged to read books that have been objected to - not banned.
    Which is what I expect to happen in a free society.

    Here again, it really seems like you don't want children to have access to it, even if their parents allow it.

    Should people not read the books that other people are trying to ban or tell them not to read? Isn't defiance against being told what to do a hallmark of a free society?

    That brings us back to the inevitable question of who gets to decide what kids can and can't read and why do those people get to make that decision?
    That idea, that if parents object, you should do it, is pretty juvenile. I picture those librarians in their own youths choosing boyfriends on the basis of which would piss off their dads most.
    The idea that people shouldn't do what others don't want them to do is oppressive and authoritarian. Juvenile is a lot easier to live with than oppression and authoritarianism.

    The thing that people who support oppression and authoritarianism never see coming, is that once all the groups you don't like are suppressed, you're next up on the chopping block. It always plays out in a ouroboros-like, vicious cycle.

    No one is safe in an oppressive and authoritarian society, not even the oppressors and authoritarians, because the table ultimately and inevitably turns on them too.
     
    Last edited:

    Glad we agree.

    The same librarians who provided "Lawn Boy" by Evison to children.

    Yes. I know a few librarians and I know they bust their arses to do what is right for their patrons, especially trying to nurture a love of reading in young people and- yes- being there to help them find the right book to answer any questions they have on any topic.

    Indeed I have. It has a adult narrator who describes explictly oral sex between himself and a 4th grade ten year old boy. This isn't a sweet puppy love story that happens to have a couple of males crushing on each other instead of a boy and a girl. If it was about a boy and a girl and was that explicit, I would say that it is child pornography, if the written word can be child pornography.

    Clarify: an adult has sex with a child in the book, or the narrator reflects on an incident when he was a child and experimented with someone his own age?

    No, and if you mean the bible, I don't believe that every part of it is suitable for children.

    Do you believe the bible should be 100% banned from being taught in schools?

    When I was a child, I was taught the bible through children's stories with illustrations of animals climbing up the ramp to the ark and Jesus carrying the cross. It was a sanitized version, the Mel Gipson version would not have been shown to me as a child.

    How old were you when you learned about the truly heinous stuff, and did it turn you off of Christianity?

    At an appropriate age, a young person can learn that the men of Sodom bent over backwards to be welcoming to guests. Even then it doesn't mean that they need explicit descriptions of MTM oral sex at the age of eight or ten, or any age really. Nor explicit drawings of oral sex as in the book "Gender Queer."

    You mean there's an appropriate time to learn that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels, and Lot tried to compromise by asking them to rape his daughters instead. But the plot twist, where the daughters rape Lot instead? Whew! Never saw that coming.

    Anyone who thinks this book should be anywhere near children or a school has no leg to stand on when it comes to what is or is not appropriate for libraries.
     
    So, a black family has a child bring home Huck Fynn and say, "Look, in this book a white boy calls a black man a N!&&#@, but they are friends. The white boy even says he loves his friend N!&&#@ Jim and will even go to Heck rather than abandon him." I think that family has a reason to complain.

    Sure. That doesn't mean they get to decide that nobody is allowed to read it, though.
     
    I'm really surprised about how much people care about how other people live their lives.

    When It comes to book banning and what people find offensive then I'm astounded, Most books reflects the time they were written in and Huckleberry Finn would be an excellent book to use when discussing things like racism, powerty and slavery, for people of all ethnic groups. Talk about the story, and the time it is set in and how that history and that time influences todays society.

    Things need not be non-offensive, Truth and understanding is more important that whitewashing everything. If you lose the historic background of society, you lose important information which allows you to better understand today by knowing and understanding the past which created today.
     
    Cuddles, I’m convinced he never read said book. Maybe he read one selected passage which was intended to outrage. Plus it’s only appropriate for high school, and then with some guidance. (It may not be appropriate for every high schooler, but very appropriate for some).
     
    How is your opt in or opt out going to work in practice? Do the parents have to supply the librarian with a list of books that they don’t like? Every year? I don’t see people actually doing that. And when the school has one librarian for hundreds of kids, how does this actually work?

    My idea was actually workable. Your kid either opts in to the library, or opts out. If he opts out the parents can supply their own books for the kids to read.
    I explained it, and it is not that complicated, but I'll explain it again. For school libraries, Parents choose during registration whether they want to approve books before their children check them out, or simply let them have access to whatever books the school librarian decides to shelve.

    When the librarian or assistant scans the barcode of a book a child wants to check out, if it says parental approval required, an email is automatically sent to the parent. The parent reponds by clicking a link and selecting yes or no.

    Most parents are going to opt out of approving or disapproving, which would be a victory for your side (assuming you are on the side of giving children highly sexualized and highly racialized material). The parents who choose to decide one by one, are the exact parents who would show up at a school board demanding a book be removed. My plan would stop much of that, which would again benefit your side.
    After reading your comments on your lawn book, and reading the reviews of that book on Amazon, (reviews from actual people, not book reviewers) I’m going to assume that you, in fact, have not read said book, but rather have only read a selected passage. Is that correct?
    If all you've read is reviews, then even if I did only read excerpts that is more than you have read. But I did read the entire book. It was not in the library at the junior high at which I teach, but it was in my local library. It is not a book for children. It is a book about an adult remembering his time as a child in a highly sexualized way.

    The narrator character is an adult, but the tone of the narration is very childlike. It reminds me of the movie Big, a child in an adult's body.
     
    Cuddles, I’m convinced he never read said book. Maybe he read one selected passage which was intended to outrage. Plus it’s only appropriate for high school, and then with some guidance. (It may not be appropriate for every high schooler, but very appropriate for some).

    Agreed. And the award the book was given, according to the American Library Association's website, is for "books written for adults that have special appeal to young adults, ages 12 through 18." That doesn't mean for everyone within the age range without any thought given to who actually reads it.
     
    Cuddles, I’m convinced he never read said book. Maybe he read one selected passage which was intended to outrage. Plus it’s only appropriate for high school, and then with some guidance. (It may not be appropriate for every high schooler, but very appropriate for some).
    1686498715890.png


    1686498805915.png



    Sad part is that it would have been very easy for the elementary and middle school librarians to simply say, "I didn't read the book before I shelved it, there's no way I have time to read every book. I shelved it because it won the Alex Award, and I always shelve those books. Now that its content has been brought to my attenction, I'm removing it and donating it to the nearest public library for whoever wants to read it (or I gave it to the high school and told that librarian that students would need some guidance).

    Instead, every little thing has to be the Battle of the Century, rather than the left ever, ever admitting a mistake.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom