A couple of good submissions on the evil scrotum book:
The Higher Power of Lucky- Controversial
sarahmae writes “The New York Times has an article about the controversy over Newbery Medal winner “The Higher Power of Lucky” using the medically correct term of scrotum.
More commentary can be found at Librarian.net which contrary to the NYT’s assertion is a blog and not an electronic mailing list.
I see this as part of trend of adults censoring the correct terms for body parts so that they do not have to explain them to children. Exhibit Two: The Hoohah Monologues“
Book banned for correct anatomical term
Fang-Face writes “The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron, is under fire for use of the correct anatomical term “scrotum”. Single Word Causes Uproar in Children’s Book has the ugly details about how some people, school teachers and librarians included, insult the intelligence of children by assuming some correctly used words don’t belong in juvenile fiction.”
the children
When reached for comment this librarian spoke of her concern for the children: http://i12.tinypic.com/2expuut.gif
more links
Captain’s Quarters
Frum’s Diary
Myself
And yes it is an anatomical term, there are many such terms not used in normal adult conversation, let alone children’s. And yes, it is a children’s book, so any conversation about it is liable to be “for the children”.
Wot’a Palooka
Sounds like a typical right-wing nut-bar reactionary to me. Another twit according to herself the authority to unilaterally decide what is and is not quality writing.
And kindly take note that she is misrepresenting the matter; while the scrotum in question was undenialby male, it was not a “man’s”. I’ve got five bucks that says these prissy idiots would be showering dung and derision in all directions even if Ms. Patron had referred to the dog’s “private parts” instead of using the actual word for that part.
Say! Here’s a clue! Why doesn’t somebody read the book and find out where the character who used the word learned it! I hardly think he’d come up with it on his own, so my guess he heard at . . . oh, . . . like, maybe the freaking veterinarian’s office?!
Oh, and in case anyone thinks this is hyperbole, I will remind all and sundry that one juvenile book — the title of which escapes me at the moment — was challenged because one of the characters referred to a female dog quite correctly as a bitch.
Re:Wot’a Palooka
Ah! Found it! Thanks to the posting at Frum’s Diary. As a writer myself, I’d have to say that idea of a rum-soaked reprobate talking a snake bite on the scrotum doesn’t ring true to character.
Gee. You’d think maybe Ms. Patron showed a bit of authorial discretion and cleaned that up a bit, wouldn’t you?
Correction
Whoops. Not Frum’s Diary; Shush.
Dogs scrotum
Oddly this is quite a common term in Ireland, well not the technical anatomical term, but dogs bollocks -well more truthfully the contents of the scrotum, but you get the general gist. It means spiffy.
No one would say dogs testes, or dogs scrotum.
However the need to describe a scene involving the scrotum of a dog in childrens literature escapes me.
I don’t think it will harm the children to hear the term scrotum, but frankly I think the whole scene in the book is stupid.