How to use this Page

The button's advice -- push for free cheese -- reminds me of experiments with mice involving cheese (and possibly electric shock).

Makes me wonder: Is there a maze involved as well?

This is what bugs me about Scrotumgate: I'm not seeing much real analysis of what's at play. I'm a children's book editor, and I would sell my soul for this kind of publicity. A handful of libraries decline to take one of my books and I get NY Times coverage and tidal wave of blogging? Where do I sign up?

The problem is that since the net impact on the publisher's and the author's bottom line is nonexistent or even positive, there's not much incentive to take on the core issues, like why is "scrotum" getting such a reaction? Is this partially because it's a Newbery book and librarians expect to be able to read the Newbery to any age? People might check out the kid's book with the dirty word, but is anyone asking why "scrotum" is a dirty word?

There's coverage--some of it innane (NY Times)--but not much analysis. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't think so. Or maybe this is all a publicity stunt and I didn't get the memo.

This is what happened, Andrew (in case you want to try it out next time!):

Librarians were discussing "The Higher Power of Lucky" on a librarian list_serv. ONE librarian raised the scrotum issue, claiming she knew others who were disturbed by it as well. A member of this listserv (who is also a member of AsIF)then forwarded the discussion to the NYT reporter. Once it appeared in the NYT it went national.

I'm happy for Patron, though. It's a charming little book and when I read it, I must admit, I didn't even flinch when I read the word. It fit with the character who spoke the word, it IS a word that would be interesting to a child like Lucky who didn't know what it meant, AND it fit with the location (small desert CA town).

Most of the REAL discussion has taken place on a variety of listservs (Child_Lit, in particular), to which most of the bloggers belong to.

The thing about viral stories is that you never know when one will take root. I know how this one did, though. Bad reporting on behalf of the NYT. Apparently (I don't belong to the librarian list as I'm not a librarian) only one or two librarians actually questioned the use of the word. All of a sudden it became an "uproar." Truly bad reporting.

Thanks for the details. This sounds a little like a more successful version of what happened to the book Pop! several months ago, wherein there were rumors of the book being suppressed at Borders because of its sexual content. This was extremely fishy--much more likely Borders simply passed on the book, which isn't that unusual--but it made the rounds of the lit blogs (and it too was on ASIF). Good publicity, though not nearly the same order of magnitude as this.

That is hilarious....

Never mind that the scrotum in question belongs to a DAWG.

(Also funny is that here in England, when we think something is really great, we say it's the Dog's B******s. No idea why though.)

Book Moot has a great post about Concerned Parents vs. Book Banning Know-Nutters, which follows her own take on the topic as a school librarian. Oh, and Scott Westerfield has a funny, yet insightful, post on the Scrotum Incident of 2007.

I never knew the word "scrotum" could be so exciting until one day Mother and Daddy were playing a charades game with my sister and me. The game was to act out a single word instead of a title or phrase, and I gave Mother the word "scrotum" to act out for Daddy to guess. She made us leave the room before she'd do it. I know she didn't cheat because he never guessed it. Eventually she called us back into the room and gave us the point. I remember to this day how exasperated she was that the kids knew the clinical names for his body parts and he didn't.

There's a rallying cry and letter writing campaign on CCBC-Net listserve over the New York Times
bias of not quoting anyone who actually had read Lucky or liked Lucky. Talk about a biased report.
[email protected] is the NY Times public editor's address.

Okay, there's the one librarian quoted in the NYT article who claims to have heard from "dozens" of supporters. In a country this big, "dozens" seems like a pretty weency minority of librarians. There's "sherry" who commented earlier on your blog. how many others are there? I can't access LM.Net or any of the childlit serves. is there anybody really on the other side in this debate? how many people? six? who maybe all blogged over and over? because i have read the blogs that I could find and I am not finding anything but people foaming at the mouth about those evil prude librarians. not much sign of EPL themselves. Fuse, can you tell those of us who aren't insiders how many of these people there really are? are they real, in your opinion? because this looks like a tempest in a teapot, and tilting at windmills and boxing at non-existent shadows.

I am a suppoter: http://maclibrary.edublogs.org/2007/02/19/the-higher-power-of-lucky-why-select-this-book/.

Scrotumania?

Well, Anonymous, I'm probably not the best person to ask. Consider that I live and work in New York City where book challenges are rare beasties, usually found only on Staten Island. I have no concept of how many librarians are actually refusing to stock this book based on The Word alone. We do know that book challenges and the like go unreported every year, so the same can probably be said for librarian exclusions. I mean, who's going to count the small library system where a single librarian simply doesn't purchase the title without making a big fuss? Probably happens once in a while. I don't think this is a massive nationwide ban including thousands of scrotumphobic MLIS degree-holders. At the same time, it probably occurs more than we know.

I see your scrotumania, Sherry, and I find that it works far better than the scrotumphilia I was thinking about. You win.

Turn on the View! The scotum is on!

Thanks Jenny for the View tip.
On the west coast they bleeped
out Joy and others using any euphanism for scrotum which I found quite laughable, and made a point, at that, and having Barbara
Walters read the passage out loud was quite something to behold.

I have been sorely tempted to start referring to "The Higher Power of Lucky's Scrotum," but I feel in my heart that someone's already done it. Not that I can find it again....

I think the think that really frustrates is how few words rhyme with scrotum. Like husband or orange, it really kicks up dust in the face of a decent rhyme. Best I could come up with was "don't ya just dote on 'em, love them books with scrotum." I know, dreadful.
Next?

I think what has people so upset is that the word scrotum may actually lead to conversations - with children! - about such words as testicles or possibly even penis. Those are such difficult words, especially when "dingleballs" or "peepee" serve so well. Why go muddy up the works with the correct terminology for anatomy - even if it is a dog's anatomy?

Hm. I couldn't find The Higher Power of Lucky at a major national book chain a few days ago, and I assumed they were just out of stock. I ASSUME they're not "taking a stand," but who knows. I'm sure I'll be able to find it at Powell's, our fabulous independent. I'm more curious than ever to read it now. I secretly hope to inspire controversy myself some day, though perhaps not about scrotums. Who knows, though? Does any writer really know if their future holds scrotums or not?

Ms. Nilsson apparently feels it is her responsibility to encourage otherwise intelligent and thoughtful library professionals to ban books from library shelves based solely on her dimwitted conclusion that a perfectly good word for a part of the male anatomy (i.e., scrotum) is not suitable for children.
This woman represents self appointed, pseudo morality police who haven't got the good sense to keep their feeble and unenlightened opinions to themselves. Ms. Nilsson needs not only to mind her own business, but do the world a favor, and resign her post as librarian in order to save the precious children of Durango from her narrow minded, judgmental, Puritanical and sexually prejudicial point of view. I'm not sure what she has against men, but exposing her inner demons in this manner is not only inappropriate, it is dangerous as well. The woman obviously needs professional help, and I can only hope the parents of Sunnyside Elementary School will view her comments in this matter with grave concern and recognize that child abuse takes many forms. They would be wise to find themselves a new teacher and librarian as soon as possible.

C. Montgomery

Crying out loud, you're from Kalamazoo. Surely that's the gold standard for "Middle America" credentials?

As a former bookseller I can reassure y'all that you can't fine a recent Newberry on your bookstore shelves for weeks after the announcement because they're sold out and reprinting. (We always figured Darth Noble had spies who tipped them off early.)

I will leave the scrotal debate to the more qualified and invested among you, but would like to offer one sharp bark of protest agains knee-jerk Oprah-dissing. Her books may run to the lugubrious, but you can count the bad ones on one hand. She has motivated millions of non-readers back to the page, and to some pretty difficult pages at that. Most of her detractors couldn't name six books she's covered, and her opponents often reflect some facet of our old front-desk guy who sniffed "I just don't think it's good for one woman to have that much power." (Of course he wouldn't dream of watching her book group.) Rupert Murdoch has power. Oprah has influence. Earned influence.

Not saying there's nothing to object to -- but let's watch the knee-jerk ridicule. Harumph.

I wrote the second quote in this entry (and dearly wish I'd proofread it better). I just want to clarify that I don't object to Lucky's appropriateness and have purchased it for my school library. My comments were about the practice of automatically buying the current Newbery winners of the last several years. The lack of young reader appeal in the winners is becoming an issue.

In my school, the students aren't interested in a book based on the award(s) it receives, they care more about the story. The teachers have never selected class reads based on an award, either. Still, I buy the major award-winners as soon as they are announced. Criss Cross and Kira-Kira have each been read a grand total of one time. A Single Shard hasn't been read at all, except by me. I hope Lucky gets more attention, but I have my doubts. My library can afford to buy these books, but if the budget were smaller I don't know that I would buy them based only on their receiving the Newbery Medal.

L.

I have not been able to find a copy to even read. It is on order. It will be interesting to see how many of my colleagues will put it in the library in my district.

I love it when my mother takes me to task in a public forum. Sorry, mom. Honestly, I've nothing but respect for the bookclub. I'm just saying that it's funny that the article had to find SOME cultural touchstone to compare the since-1922 Newbery Awards too and the only thing they could come up with was Oprah's BC. This is less a reflection on the bookclub itself than it is the fact that it is the ONLY commercially similar venue out there. Amusing.

I wonder if Cedar Grove Elementary, of I Saw Esau fame, has a copy.

Not to rain on anyone's parade of here, but I'm going to be so happy when the discussion about Lucky shifts away from the "controversy" and onto whether or not the book is really any good.

Personally, I wasn't that bowled over by it and feel this is all a big whoop over nothing. I guess there really is no such thing as bad publicity if the NYT's list is anything to go by (which is another topic for another day)

Credibility of the Newbery:

The controversy of the Newbery winner this year brings up the question of the credibility of the award.

The ALA Newbery Committee does a valuable service by taking the time others don't have to sift through the hundreds of books published each year to find those which are "distinguished contributions to children's literature."

But the power/prestige of the award are given by "we, the people" as we read the books and AGREE with the committee. If not for the school librarians and teachers (yes, the gatekeepers to children's literature) then kids would never see or read any of these books.

So, what happens when the committee consistently chooses books that "we, the people" disagree with because the books don't fit the needs of our community, or even conflict with the values of our community?

The librarians are chastised for "banning" books or "censoring." Hmmm. An interesting relationship is revealed: does the committee have an elitist attitude which says their choice must be right? does the local librarian ignore the committee's choice without reading it?

No one has questioned the author's rights to write the text, nor the publisher's rights to publish it. Why are you questioning the librarian's rights to vote on the book by not purchasing it? Should they always walk in lock-step with a committee's decision? Or, should they do their jobs and decide what books to include in their collection?

If the Newbery committee continues to choose books that many feel do not meet the needs of children, then the award will lose it's credibility.

On the other hand, librarians should take heed of the committee's choice and read the book. It might well surprise some. It might well disappoint many. At the least, it should be read and an informed choice should be made.

This isn't just a discussion over one word. In part, it's a discussion of the whole process of giving awards and our expectations of those awards.

S.

Ha! I blogged about this today without checking your blog for a few days... and here you are blogging about it! I said my 2 cents. I think there's some odd thing going on here in America. On the one hand TV and movies are getting more extreme with the sexual content while some parts of the country are doing the reverse. I watched a PBS special a while ago about a small town that doesn't teach sex ed anymore. Guess what's happening. Lots of pregnancies!

Of course, the sex talk here isn't even the point. Scrotum is a body part that all males have. For god's sake, get over it already! As I'd said before, make all those librarians do some nude model drawings and they'll get the sex zapped right out of them when it comes to considering body parts.

meghan

Oh, and on the Oprah topic, check out The Secret, which is FLYING off the shelves. A woman bought 5 copies the other day at the bookstore and handed them out! What the ??? I think "The Universe" told her to. The book is a load of crap. So in my opinion, Oprah's standards are going DOWN HILL. Comparing the awards to her book club will be insulting soon enough, if it isn't already.

meghan

PS- I'd still kill to be on Oprah.

meghan

LM_Net is the listserv for school librarians. I've been a member for at least 9 years. It has been very depressed reading the posts this past week.

I haven't read this book so I have no opinion about its literary quality. I just hate the fog of defensive librarianship that has settled over school libraries these days.

For the sake of narrowing the focus of the discussion, the debate over the actual hands-on usefulness of the Newbery award winners is a worthy topic in and of itself. I wouldn't dream of ever questioning a librarian's right to add or not add a book based on their quiet, considered, thoughtful decision over whether or not a title, award winner or no, fits their collection. My concerns, at this time anyway, focuses squarely on the problems associated with those librarians who have NOT read a book, decide on page one what to think of it, and come to snap decisions. They are the primary focus of my concern. Not the good librarians who have taken all sides into account and have come to a measured decision as you, S, have.

Because of the nature of the award, few school or public libraries own all Newbery winners. Perhaps I should write a new post where we can discuss how useful this particular award (to say nothing of the Caldecott) actually is in the grand scheme of things as well.

Oh boy, there are SO many things I want to say.

But first, I was a member of LM_Net when I was in grad school, and it helped me TREMENDOUSLY and I stayed a member until it was just too much, with a new job as a media specialist (aka, school librarian) and I unsubscribed, but gee, I think I might have to re-up my subscription!

I left my opinions at my blog, www.librarystew.blogspot.com so I won't waste space here except to say THANKS for the blog and this forum to debate! As school librarians/media specialists we are in the unique position that we are usually the ONLY ONE in the school so we don't have collegues to debate in the lunch room like teachers and public librarians do, so having a forum like this helps (that is also the handy thing about LM_Net also.)

This is an interesting discussion.

It just goes to show that what one approves of another doesn't. What one picks, another doesn't. What one loves another hates.

And this is what the business of publishing is all about--subjective opinions about books.

It starts when an editor either loves a book or passes on it and it goes all the way down to whether or not librarians love or hate it and then finally to whether or not kids love it.

It's interesting to watch the flow of a book as it travels these channels.

According to poster "S", it's not just the word Scrotum, it is also 12-Step groups that are offensive to Middle America. Mmm.....does this mean to say that Middle America has no alcoholics, families of alcoholics or children of alcoholics???? Really????

And perhaps if a young person doesn't know what a Twelve-Step program is, then Middle America educators could educate about 12-Step Programs in particular Alateen (A 12-Step Program) which is for young people who have a friend or family member who drinks too much. Unless of course, Middle America has absolutely no need for 12-Step Programs because there are no alcoholics in Middle America.....please! Give me a break!

M.

I think this debate will only help the book to find its audience--banned books always sell like hotcakes. So, I say bring it on!

But it's too bad that the debate also hasn't shone a light on the wonderful books chosen as Newbery Honor winners. If you encounter someone who think that the committee was on some sort of campaign to shock America's children, point them to the fantastic Hattie Big Sky, which is as thought-provoking, kid-appealing, and as gentle as they come.

Dana Nillson, the school librarian quoted in the article, comes off sounding like an idiot. I hope people who read the article don't assume she's typical of school librarians. What an insult to the profession!

Despite being a 28 year old female, I have the taste of a 10-14 year old boy when it comes to my reading preferences. It's one of the thing that makes me a some-what decent editor. My tastes have never leaned towards the books that win the Newberry medal. And since I also work in a bookstore, I've gotten to try to persuade kids (and the adults in their lives) to read certain books. As such, I have on (rare) occassions tried to get them to read some Newberry books. And invaribly their eyes glaze, and one child finally told me why. According to him, Newberry books "are boring and suck." Trying not to laugh I got him to explain that they were all depressing.

So, after the kid left, I stood in front of the Newberry bay and looked at the titles. I could see why they might not particularly appeal to kids. They skew to the historical and/or serious subjects (what the kid meant by depressing). I saw a few fantasies, one science fiction, and almost nothing except Whipping Boy and High King had male protagonists. No wonder the boys (and me) hadn't been all that enthused about Newberrys.

Now the Honor books are a different subject, and I like lots of those books. However the medal seems to go to the same type of book year after year.

But I've gotten off track. I meant to comment not on Newberrys but on the decision on the validity of a work after only reading a few pages. After all, as an editor that's what I do all the time. With most manuscripts you can tell by the 15th page whether the style and/or subject matter will work for the press. Many times you can tell sooner. And it's not just editors who make decisions like that. Customes and librarian patrons often read a few pages before choosing what book to bring home. Do I think it's the best way to decide if a book is good? No, but it's better than relying on a cover or jacket copy — something we all routinely use in determining if we want a book.

As for poor Lucky, I only had time to read the first chapter after my store got its shipment in, but scrotum's not withstanding I agree this book almost certainly will prove to have literary merit. But like most boys, I'm just not that interested in reading anymore.

I'm with the anonymous commenter just above--it drives me nuts that most (or maybe all, I forget) of the school librarians quoted in the article were, or at least came off as, purse-lipped fearful defenders of censorship, when that's not at all representative of the field. For crying out loud, you work at the Donnell--it would've just taken a local, 7-digit phone call for them to have gotten a nice counter-quote out of you or any of the dozens of school librarians in NYC who I'm sure would staunchly support the book.

About LM_NET--I also subscribed when I was first starting my current school libraian job, and found the list to be a treasure trove of ideas, tips, and suggestions for running a school library program. I also found that a huge chunk of the posters were fuzzy, to say the least, on basic intellectual freedom concepts. Coming fresh out of library school as I did, I was kind of shocked. Not any more. Lots of school librarians come from teaching and have at most a library endorsement awarded after taking a few classes. They might be terrific teachers and dedicated to their schools, but freedom to read doesn't seem to be emphasized in their education or valued by their employers or community.

"After reading it several times, it's not just the S-Word, or the anonymous 12-step programs--it's something about the tone that is set up immediately. Those things are generally offensive in Middle America, but it's the combination of them, plus the density of the text at first, that creates the strong impression.

If a kid doesn't know what a 12-step anonymous program is (AA is never mentioned) then it's hard to understand what is happening. The phrase "Hard Pan Found Object Wind-Chime Museum and Visitor's Center" is a mouthful, and the rest is sometimes--well, it has a different sort of rhythm and flow. And that results in an cumulative tone that doesn't let a reader in."

Well done, well said! The last three Newberys especially (Kira, Criss, Lucky)....aren't they really young adult books tweaked for the children's market?


Z

I'm so sorry to inform you of this, but I am a parent and I find Dick and Jane offensive.

:-)

(I've already ordered a copy of The POwer of Lucky for my 7th grader to read.)

Unlike public librarians, school librarians are censors. School budgets aren't large enough to buy every book published, which means librarians make choices about what to buy -- and what not to buy. Additionally, school librarians are required to act in loco parentis, which also requires censorship. It's silly to criticize school librarians for doing what they are required to do.

That said, not buying The Higher Power of Lucky because of the word scrotum is overreacting.

While school libraries can't purchase "every book published," I'm willing to bet most of them do purchase every Newbery book, or at least every recent one and each year's additions.

I would be horrified if our middle-school librarian chose not to purchase "Lucky" based on either this word or the depiction of 12-step programs. Kids are going to ask for the new Newbery winner; posters will feature it (our library has a poster of recent Newbery winners); it should be accessible in school.

I particularly appreciated Ms. Patron's reference to children being lucky to have access to the Robie Harris / Michael Emberley books, since my son pulled "It's Not the Stork!" off our shelves this morning and re-read it, stopping to ask me, "What's a foreskin?"

I should clarify -- I referred to "our middle-school librarian," but my son is currently in elementary school. I could better understand the elementary-school librarian not purchasing it -- or Kira-Kira, or other previous Newberys that are meant for middle grades -- though I hope that she will purchase Lucky because I do think it's appropriate for the fourth and fifth-graders, and not every book in the library has to be appropriate for all the grades.

"White bread suburbia, here we come."

Wait! The irony! Can you really level this criticism when all of the 2007 Newbery books seem like a big gift from one generation of white bookish females to another generation of white bookish females?

Jonathan

A point indeed. Though one might mention that the aforementioned "Kira-Kira" doesn't fit this stereotype. But then, this year was uncommonly pale. Not everyone on the committee, however, was a white bookish female. Not many weren't, of course, but let's not lump everyone in together.

White bookish people, I hear your pain. I hail from a culture where an affectionate morning greeting is, "So, how was your bowel movement this morning?" Courtesy is not about particular words or cultural practices and phobias; it's comes from the HEART. And that's what Susan Patron's book has, my dearies. Back to trying to put some of that into my own writing ...

I just read the opening couple pages of The Higher Power of Lucky to several groups: a kidlit class at a liberal arts college in middle Ameria, a group of K-4 teachers in middle America, a Creative Writing for Children class in middle America. All were hesitant about giving The Higher Power of Lucky to students.

After reading it several times, it's not just the S-Word, or the anonymous 12-step programs--it's something about the tone that is set up immediately. Those things are generally offensive in Middle America, but it's the combination of them, plus the density of the text at first, that creates the strong impression. If a kid doesn't know what a 12-step anonymous program is (AA is never mentioned) then it's hard to understand what is happening. The phrase "Hard Pan Found Object Wind-Chime Museum and Visitor's Center" is a mouthful, and the rest is sometimes--well, it has a different sort of rhythm and flow. And that results in an cumulative tone that doesn't let a reader in.

I don't think it's just that word. But in Middle America, this book will not play well, from my small sampling. Like it or not, much of America is still conservative, while publishing is largely not conservative. They/we are willing to accept the different, the unusual--but this opening strikes the ear and the reader with too much of a dischordant tone.

S.

Geez.

Have any of these naysayers actually owned a dog? Or spent time on an elementary school playground?

And do we really think that kids will have trouble understanding what a twelve-step program is? Give 'em a little credit, people.

Jack Santos once remarked that there seems to be an invisible wall in children's literature keeping certain kinds of families out, not based on race or social status but for pure dysfunctionality -- like Joey Pigza's. (He delicately called them "low supervision homes.") Sad to say, but I think the residents of Hard Pan -- with their addicts, their deadbeat dads, and their dogs who get bit on the crotch -- are bumping up against this wall.

In terms of Middle America (from whence I hail) it's less a question of whether or not kids "get" the book than it is a question of whether or not you're going to let them get their grubby little hands on it in the first place. I can totally understand not thinking a kid would like it, but if a kid DOESN'T care for the book then they have the option of putting it down. What we have to do is keep ourselves from not allowing the kids to see it in the first place. You don't want to assign it in school? Totally fine. But I worry that what's being said here is that you wouldn't even add it to a library in the first place for fear that the kids will find it "hard to understand". I might think that "Kira-Kira" was suited only for children ages 12 and above, but it's not my place to keep it out of my library, forbidding access to the younger whippersnappers.

If I understand you correctly, you read the first few pages to three groups of adults and right there and then y'all judged the entire book? My sweet darling, surely there are better ways to review a text. And surely you'd add it to a library in spite of your first impressions, yes?

I can totally understand not thinking a kid would like it, but if a kid DOESN'T care for the book then they have the option of putting it down. What we have to do is keep ourselves from not allowing the kids to see it in the first place.

Please remember that school libraries and public libraries have different functions, as well as financing. When a school budget is tight (and I've heard of schools that allot $500 a year to their libraries collections, where non-fiction is the priority,) the librarian has to make hard choices. Buying a book he doesn't think his patrons will read and isn't a tied into the school's curriculum becomes necessary. When three of the last five winners (Lucky may or may not join that list,) have very little young reader appeal among the librarian's patrons, not automatically buying the winner may be a valid decision.

A correction to my post above: instead of saying "non-fiction is the priority" in school library collections, I should have said materials that meet classroom needs are the priority. Obviously, classes study literature. However, they don't necessarily study recent Newbery winners.

WHY do we have to "keep ourselves from not allowing kids to see it in the first place"? There are so many books with more kid appeal and just as interesting characters--and so little time in the world. Why not concentrate on what WE perceive as excellent?
The ALA has named the books they feel are excellent, but why can't a librarian make that same determination for her community? She's paid to do just that, as part of her job in building a collection. Why think that she would blindly accept the word of an ALA committee?

Yes, if the first three pages fail to pull in readers--why continue? You shouldn't have to perservere through a book to get to the good parts. No, we didn't just the "entire book"; just the fact that the opening wasn't kid-friendly, didn't invite readers in and we didn't like it. Again--why continue?

There are hundreds of books that kids can't see each year because there are so many published and so little time/money. There are always books that "we don't allow kids to see in the first place."

A second consideration to take into account is the need in the community. If a child is assigned "The Higher Power of Lucky" in school, or it's listed as one of several titles and they go to their library, is it odd to think that they would not be able to get their hands on the most recent Newbery winner? I certainly do not like every book that comes through my library, but if I find that enough people with opinions that I trust DO like it, then I have to take that into accountn as a librarian.

I guess it all comes down to how an individual sees a librarian's role in the community. Now obviously I'm compromised in this conversation since I was on this particular Newbery committee. So if I say something like, "a Newbery book is not the same as the latest Disney Princess adventure" it sounds like I'm tooting my own horn. But that doesn't change the fact that we are talking about the best-known children's book of 2006. If you don't add it to your library it goes beyond your own personal prerogative and denies children access to, what some would deem, a work of literary quality. Your reasons, therefore, should extend beyond a single word or intelligent themes.

Is it censorship via exclusion or simply a case where you feel that "scrotum" and themes make a book a middle grade reader? All this aside, can you honestly judge ANY book in the first three pages? Ever read the first three of "Tuck Everlasting"? Beautiful but not exactly gripping. Three pages seems an awfully small space of time to justify denying kids the chance of reading, in my personal opinion, a wonderful story.

Another question, actually, that was percolating in my brain today. What is the fear here? I've been wondering this for a while. Has the threat of potential banning caused more librarians to limit books that might cause a stir in their communities? Are people less likely to push the envelope in this increasingly conservative day and age? And are librarians so afraid of offending anyone that they've chosen to no longer fulfill their roles as providers of all kinds of books for all kinds of people? Or am I placing too much concern on a single title? Fascinating stuff!

we are talking about the best-known children's book of 2006.

I do think this is hyperbole. Librarians have heard of the book because of the Newbery, but most readers of children's books would probably name another title as "best known."

To be honest, when reading the review of Lucky in School Library Journal I decided to pass on it. It didn't sound like it would appeal to my patrons and there are more good books published that they would like to read than we can afford. I was disappointed when Lucky won the Newbery, but it is now on my shelf. That said, I wouldn't criticize any librarian of a small collection for not purchasing it, assuming the reason was something other than the scrotum issue.

L.

Granted. Assuming, as you say, the reason was not related to the scrotum issue or, I should think, the 12-step -program (which has caused a similar if smaller debate).

I really find it hard to swallow when I hear about this kind of myopic thinking. It's selling the intelligence of this nation's children far too short.

For one thing, any good middle school would have introduced children the the term "scrotum" in the myriad of sex education classes. I know that my classmates and I used far worse language in our daily lunch discussions. And while I can't remember the title of the book, I can remember pulling some novel out of the fiction section in my middle school's library which quite vividly described a heavy petting session between the two main characters -- it's copyright date was from back in the 1950's -- and my twon was about as white bread suburban as they come.

Just my two bits.

Apart from it being a wonderful story, the book includes characters and situations that aren't in a lot of other books for the age group, and I think that's a good thing. Your library may well include readers whose parents are in 12-step programs, or who receive government food (hopefully better than the government cheese in the book), or who have guardians rather than parents taking care of them. Excluding this book because "kids won't want to read it and won't be familiar with these themes" is denying them the chance to see that a Newbery-winning book portrays kids in such situations, with empathy and humor and no condescension.

As Joy Williams once wrote: "Words, you know. They're around. They've been used a lot."

But at least Newbery will be spelled correctly, for a while.

HoBoo, maybe?

Put me down for cojones (even though it is not quite the same thing).

Perhaps the end goal of a review - serving the reader - could provide some guidance. Do readers care about a single typo, or an entry missing from a glossary? Is it worth their time to even read about it? My guess is no. But should a book get published with copious blunders, look unprofessional, and compromise the reader's experience, they should hear about it.

Speaking of scrotums... did you hear the one about the Japanese tanooki suit? (Safe for work)

One of the commenters on Roger's blog had it right, I think: "The use of this word is in keeping with Short Sammy's personality, and Lucky's confusion about the word and what it means does mirror her confusion about the adult world in general."

It also gives us a good view into Lucky's character and way of thinking, when she thinks that it sounds like something green that you cough up, that she is glad she doesn't have one herself, and that she both would like and would not like to see one.

It fits the book well, though I do see how it could make it more difficult to read in story hour. As one of the commenters pointed out, the author probably didn't write the book with story hour in mind.

I do think the age 9-11 range that's now being mentioned is more appropriate for this book than the 2nd grade and up I'd heard previously, but not primarily because of the use of the word 'scrotum'. It was interesting that one of the commenters said the author should've had the balls to just say balls - I think it would've been much less interesting.

If it isn't clear, I thought the book was terrific.

I also thought the use of scrotum was perfectly within character. And I can't believe it's caused such an uproar.

As someone who grew up in the California desert, albeit in a much larger town close to Palm Springs, I thought her desert characters were right on.

I'm also one of the ones who thought this book would be enjoyed by some second graders (7 and up). But I had independent reading in mind for sure. This one doesn't seem like a class read-along to me anyway.

I think my almost-7 first-grader would enjoy it, but that a couple of the themes would be slightly heavy for him. But next year I might feel differently.

In a certain light, any review that doesn't say "This book is a complete waste of time and paper" is good P.R. How many books go by without us even hearing or reading the title once? Too many.

When I first read "Lucky" and came to the scrotum passage, I couldn't help but heave a mighty groan. I didn't object to the word, but I knew that many, many other rather silly people would. And that I would have to hear from them at work.

These are the same people who object to Karla Kuskin's "The Philharmonic Gets Dressed" because it shows adults taking baths and putting on underwear.

Och.

You know, some of us are just . . . persnickety. One typo is not worth mentioning; multiple typos aren't the author's fault, but they spoil the book and are worth mentioning in a review. One major grammar error, like the one I found in a book that I read that was nominated for the Cybil award, is annoying and should have been caught by the editor and was enough to make me decide not to write about the book on my blog at all. Not that my blog has enough influence to increase or decrease sales of a book.

The Newbery award a tiny topic? What a bunchy ninny you are!!!
Marion

I have enjoyed reading your blog, but this is my first post. I appreciate the discussion about typos in books. As a reviewer and author, I see both sides of the issue. If a typo is small, I will evaluate the book on the merit of the story. It would be unfair to harshly judge the author because of human error on the part of an editor. For the reader with an editor's eye, a minor typo can be found in many books. If there are multiple errors that distract from the story, it reflects poorly on the author, editor, and publisher. If it could not be overlooked, I would opt not to publish a review. An incorrectly spelled word is a much greater offense than an error in punctuation.

What about grammar? Ever shifting first to second person stuff? I've had issues with this in the past and it's never clear exactly who is to blame. Is it necessarily the author or once again the publisher's fault?

Good question! In my critique group, I am a stickler for point of view - but mistakes do slip through. In a final copy (not an ARC) it is the editor's unlimate responsibility. It can be hard for an author working closely on a manuscript since it is not unusual to hear "I think this manusciprt would be better in first person" during a critique. In the revision process, some mistakes are inevitable. What is your feeling about the use of "their" in a singular context - such as "a child must take their work home?" I know it is awkward to always say "his or hers," but I don't like the use of "their" in a singular context. Am I too fussy? Yikes!

On grammar: I've seen more and more instances of "could of" and "would of" in published books. We have to assume that the copy editor doesn't know that it's wrong, which is slightly scary. But we also have to assume that grammatical errors of this nature originated with the author.

As for HoBo -- I'm still chuckling over seeing the terms "Horn Book" and "street cred" in the same paragraph. In keeping with Horn Books' grand tradition, I propose that it just be known as "The Book."

As far as I am concerned, there is no excuse for "could of" and "should of." However,I am fine with "coulda" if it's in the dialogue.

I'm not entirely convinced that the dog should have been named LUCKY. The cognomen of Lucky seems entirely inappropriate to this canine's fate. The author on the other hand was "lucky" to have won the prestigious and coveted Newberry Award.