As a librarian, I feel the need to chime in on this, but I'm pretty sure I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. Whatever, the point is, the 2007 Newbery Medal winner is getting a lot of uptight librarians all of a tizzy. The book that won is The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron, a woman with an amusing name considering the outcry her book has caused.
I've never read this book and have no idea what it's about, but that never seems to deter people from participating in these conversations, so I have no guilt. Besides, the objectionable material is on page 1, so it's ok. One page, yes. One word, in point of fact. Cover your children's ears and have them leave the room because I'm about to say the corrupting word that will send them down a slippery slope towards the dreaded Pr's: Promiscuity, Prostitution, and Pregnancy! Yes, that is what will happen when your child opens up this book and sees the word........ scrotum.
Now please try to contain your horror. I notice that a number of you have fainted, and I ask for those still standing to attend to those on the ground. It is important that we discuss the appalling context. The main character of the book overheard the word when an adult was talking about how his dog got bit by a rattlesnake in his scrotum.
Ok, seriously now. While not a pleasant image in any way, it disturbs me that librarians of all people are freaking out. I expect it from parents, I mean they object to everything, but I used to pride myself on being a part of a community that touted freedom of expression and freedom from censorship. Every cataloger learns never to provide evaluative data in their output. Librarians provide access to resources and teach their patrons how to do their own evaluative analysis, and keeping this book--a Newbery winner at that--off the shelves because of what they consider to be one offensive word goes against everything that I hold sacred in this field.
But enough librarian talk. Now were going to talk about the other reasons this is ridiculous.
“I think it’s a good case of an author not realizing her audience,” said Frederick Muller, a librarian at Halsted Middle School in Newton, N.J. “If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn’t want to have to explain that.”
On the contrary, Susan Patron knows exactly who her audience is. Quite frankly, Mr. Muller, I wouldn't want you explaining it to my kids either. Make a word sound naughty and taboo, and that's all it will be. If you teach kids that words like this are objectionable, you're the one creating the objection. On the other hand, if you teach them that it's simply a word for a body part that they all have--or that half of them have--they'll all snicker a little (because that's what kids do) and that'll be the end of it. If you're comfortable with the situation and teach the word as a natural part of our language that can show up in books and conversation, it will not be naughty. It's when you try to hide things from kids that they yell it out on the bus for shock value because when they discover it on their own, it's not from someone who can present it in a mature manner. This book's use is mature.
So these stick-in-the-ass librarians need to seriously consider what they're objecting to because from my perspective, it looks like they think 'scrotum' is inappropriate for children because they're uncomfortable with the word themselves, probably because of the way it was presented to them.
Susan Patron is not out of line. If she said "balls" or "nads" or "sack" or "teabag" or--ok, I'm grossing myself out... but that'd be a different story. It's a scrotum. It's a thing. You've got one, Mr. Muller, and so do your third- and fourth-grade patrons, and I don't care about your own personal issues, but I seriously object to teaching kids that their bodies are something to be ashamed of. That goes for all of you.
UPDATE: I would like to apologize to Susan Patron that Blogger automatically alphabetizes my post labels.