At the risk of beating a dead horse, here’s a couple more scrotalicious links. PUBLIB pointed the way to an A Post by Neil Gaiman, whose unconditional love for librarians was testeed by a librarian who decided kids shouldn’t read The Higher Power of Lucky because of the use of the word “scrotum”.
“I’ve decided that librarians who would decline to have a Newbery book in their libraries because they don’t like the word scrotum are probably not real librarians (whom I still love unconditionally). I think they’re rogue librarians who have gone over to the dark side.“
He also points the way to The Gelflog where they point to a few other scrotalicious books for tweens and below that must go as well.
Always remember Blake’s Golden Rule: If you don’t like it, it’s no good for anyone.
thank you
Thank you for highlighting just how badly people don’t get this. Here’s the contentious paragraph:
Here’s the first example from the list given:
All Things Great And Small is almost 450 pages and meant for High School and up, Jr. High if they’re strong readers. The Higher Power of Lucky is 140+ pages and meant for 4th through 6th grade readers. The reason librarians pulled Lucky is supposedly we’re supposed to understand the difference between audiences. That so many of our profession don’t is pathetic. That Gaiman doesn’t I don’t really give a damn, good writer but he serves no one but his own interests.
the harm
I don’t have children nor do I work with any so I must ask: What is the demonstrable harm in 4th thru 6th grader reading the word “scrotum” or knowing what one is?
Re:the harm
I have to agree with you, Chuck. Perhaps it’s the context, (you could take exception to rum, as well) but I suppose by the time a kid’s in fifth grade, s/he should know that the technical name for that part of the anatomy isn’t “nuts” or “balls.” Because you know by the time a kid’s in second grade, they’re telling “ball” jokes and making innuendos.
Maybe I’m precocious. I sure as hell was making “ball” innuendos at that age. Heck, I still am!
Re:the harm
Even if a 4-year old was read that I think the only damage is the parent’s image of their child… not any real damage.
Re:the harm
We’ve been discussing this at some length in PubYac where the majority of subscribers do work with children and most of us don’t see the problem either. We’ve had a wife of a minister weigh in and say they taught their children the correct names of things early on. So yes, it puizzles children’s librarians too.