Children's Book Banned for Silly Reason. Again.

This year's Newberry Medal, surely the most prestigious award for a children's book, went to Susan Patron's The Higher Power of Lucky. The book, as Jeri Kladder, chair of the Newberry Medal committee puts it, "is a perfectly nuanced blend of adventure, survival (emotional and physical) and hilarious character study... as well as a blueprint for a self-examined life. Through Lucky’s experiences, we are reminded that children support one another just as needy adults do." It has also subsequently been banned from libraries across the country because it contains the word "scrotum."

This is stupid, and let me tell you why.

Dana Nilsson, a librarian who was interviewed by the New York Times about the book, is quoted as saying: "I don't want to start an issue about censorship, but you won't find men's genitalia in quality literature. At least not for children." And she's got a point. I, too, would question the integrity of a children's book with a bunch of johnsons in it. The problem is, Lucky doesn't actually have men's genitalia in it; it mentions the word "scrotum" in a context that reflects important and relatable life issues faced by children. Not the same thing.

Pat Scales, the Medal's former chair, hits the nail on the head. "The people who are reacting to that word are not reading the book as a whole. That's what censors do: they pick out words and don't look at the total merit of the book."

One example of this is that one of the most popular (and very rarely morally questioned) children's franchises revolves around a game in which children capture small animals and force them to fight each other. Yet, the only complaints we ever hear about Pokémon, which contains no naughty words, have to do with the amount of time kids spend playing it and the inability of adults to understand its appeal.

We've probably all heard of the story about the elementary schooler in New York who was hit by a car, and whose friends, instead of going for help, ran into the street and began collecting his Pokémon cards.

If you have a little extra time, please do evaluate both of these examples--Lucky and Pokémon--and decide which one you would rather keep your children away from. Feel free to leave feedback.

Another question to consider: where are the children in all this? I've seen a few sources reporting this story, and not a single one of them has cited a quote from--or even an anecdote about--a child who read Lucky and was confused or disturbed by the presence of this dirty, bad word.

My observation, is encapsulated by a comment from librarian Frederick Muller (also cited in the Times), who said, "If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn't want to have to explain that." And another one from the NYT: "Andrea Koch, the librarian at French Road Elementary School in Brighton, NY, said she anticipated angry calls from parents if she ordered [the book]. 'I don't think our teachers, or myself, want to do that vocabulary lesson,' she said in an interview."

So. Who are the people who ban books like Lucky really protecting? And from what? 'Cause they aren't mentioning the kids a whole lot.

As we all head for careers in an industry that is this susceptible to censorship, I implore everyone to search for another angle on this whole modern mythology of Children Can't Handle Anything. Going against the grain on this one may be a risky stance to take, but if nobody does anything, where does that leave us?

Update: another great post on this topic to be found at The Publishing Contrarian