I've been following this. Isn't it absolutely sick. I can't believe it actually. It's not a swear word or anything - it's part of life. I can think of so many other words she could have used. Please people I'd rather have my kids KNOW the real terms.
Alma
Natalie, you crack me up.
It would be interesting to know in what context the word was used. GB
So...it was the dog's scrotum. Well now, that changes everything.
I think this is a bunch of hooha over nothing. The character is retelling an event, a dog got bit on his scrotum.
The question I have is did Ol' Roy live? :eh:
CJ
Funny that CJ used the word "hoohah", which was recently substituted for the clinically correct term "vagina" in ads for The Vagina Monologues in Atlantic Beach, Florida.
Allow me to stir the pot: I wonder. Should all of us go back to the thread on HarperCollins printing O.J. Simpson's book and take the roll call from there? How many said, "GOOD FOR THEM." Anybody cry "Censorship!"?
If you say "That's different." No it isn't.
Can't have it both ways, folks. If accuse those people who are not purchasing this book of being narrow minded and puritanical, then you're also condemning those who opposed the publication of O.J.'s book of the same thing.
Remember, when you point a finger, three .....
keep writing,
dave r
There probably are librarians and teachers out there who are offended by the word, and who won't buy the book because of this.
Censorship belongs to the parents. I am the gatekeeper for my child, not the librarian.
That's like people being offended by the word esophagus.
Appendix. Cartilage. Intestine.
Could you refrain from using the names of body parts please? I have body image issues. Don't make me report you to the mods.:dr
Kelly
See, I think this is a selection issue, not a censorship issue. We may or may not agree with the selection policy or criteria, but it's not censorship.
mucus, tibia, tympanic membrane
titillating. I plan to touch my uvula.
Happy Scrotuming!
Funny that CJ used the word "hoohah", which was recently substituted for the clinically correct term "vagina" in ads for The Vagina Monologues in Atlantic Beach, Florida.
And I'd be standing right beside you, Sam -- if it were a public library.
:dr
Scrotumly,
Leslie
You guys are nuts.
When the majority of a community is of a like mind, and there is not a lot of diversity of views, these things happen.I think this happens quite often because of a vocal minority. It's a shame the teachers and librarieans get caught in the middle.
Libraries can't purchase every book either. If they choose a book because it isn't AR or is too long, is that censorship?
See, I think this is a selection issue, not a censorship issue. We may or may not agree with the selection policy or criteria, but it's not censorship.
Now, if the school says, the children may not read this book no matter where they got it from (purchased it, got it from the public library), then there's a problem.
From the article:
"Authors of children’s books sometimes sneak in a single touchy word or paragraph, leaving librarians to choose whether to ban an entire book over one offending phrase."
From the article:
"Authors of children’s books sometimes sneak in a single touchy word or paragraph, leaving librarians to choose whether to ban an entire book over one offending phrase."Quote
The hairs on my neck just did the wave.
Leslie
A librarian choosing which books to include in her collection is not exhibiting "censorship;" she is using her right as librarian (her job description) to stock the shelves as she sees fit. Each individual library will be, in a sense, a reflection of each individual librarian's personal taste in literature. That's just human nature, it's not censorship.
Secondly, a lot of you are inadvertently misusing the word "censorship." Censhorship is when a book is banned by a government and no longer can be sold or distributed by law. A librarian choosing which books to include in her collection is not exhibiting "censorship;" she is using her right as librarian (her job description) to stock the shelves as she sees fit. Each individual library will be, in a sense, a reflection of each individual librarian's personal taste in literature. That's just human nature, it's not censorship.
I think that when the book is a Newbery winner, one person should not have the power to not stock it. Let the board decide.
It's strange how books are often judged by different standards than movies. I was just remembering how, in the movie E.T., the kids in the movie call each other "penis breath" and "douchebag" as insults. (By the way, I wrote this BEFORE seeing FacelessWords' post about that, above mine! Too funny.) I found that mortifying when watching the movie with my kids...
That's a valid opinion, regardless of whether or not a book is a Newbery winner. But it's still not "censorship." If someone really wants the book, he can go to another library, borrow it from a friend, or purchase it on Amazon.com. It's extremely easy to get one's hands on any book one wants, really.I disagree -- it is effectively censorship. Kids that age can't just jump in the car and drive to another library or bookstore. Depending on where they live, alternatives might not even be available. They also can't log onto Amazon and charge a copy to their Visa account. We can quibble about what term to assign to this phenomenon, but the end result is the same whether the book is removed from the shelf or just not put there in the first place. Nobody, including librarians, has the right to dictate what someone else's kids are not allowed to read.
From the second to last line in the article: “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship,” she said. “But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.”
It's still not "censorship." Maybe it's making a choice for a wrong reason, or making a choice that frustrates the choices of others, or maybe it's just downright stupid. But it's not "censorship."I'm curious -- what is it about this sort of incident that prevents you from wanting to refer to it as censorship? Is it because the book never hits the shelf in the first place?
I'm curious -- what is it about this sort of incident that prevents you from wanting to refer to it as censorship? Is it because the book never hits the shelf in the first place?
The term censorship is commonly used in situations involving book challenges. A Google search on the words "banned books censorship" brings up 1,250,000 hits.
A valid question! The truth is, the word "censorship" is widely misused, particularly in the media today. If materials are truly "censored," then there is ultimately no way to get your hands on them, regardless of whether they were once on the shelves, or never made it there. True censorship implies control at a level that literally prevents the material from being distributed. I'm not surprised that your Google search brought up so many hits, simply because of the gross misuse of the word's meaning.That's reasonable, but I think the meaning of the word is shifting, for better or for worse. Language is by necessity fluid and adaptable. Maybe "surpression" is more appropriate in this case?
Many people don't like to hear it, but our freedom of speech includes the right to speak against -- or, in the case of a librarian, not to stock -- a book for whatever reason. Now, that same librarian can't disallow people from obtaining the book through other means. Big difference there.This makes me think of that quote attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't have any trouble with people speaking out against a book -- it's perfectly within their right to do so. It's when they impose their own choices upon me, thereby limiting *my* choices, that I get cranky. Expressing yourself shouldn't interfere with others' rights. So I'm not entirely convinced that freedom of expression extends to a librarian stocking shelves in a public institution. I may very well be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they set up the First Amendment.
Maybe we should let kids rule the world and get it right for a change...
There's a FABULOUS letter on the YALSA listserv (http://lists.ala.org/wws/info/yalsa-bk (http://lists.ala.org/wws/info/yalsa-bk)) by Dr. Dresang. She's sending it in to the NY Times with the request to " to investigate what [she considers] the 'slanted and sensational tone' of the New York Times article, "With Single Word, a Children's Book Stirs a Battle" by reporter Julie Bosman." It's an articulate & passionate response--while still utilizing argumentative tactics and logic. I couldn't stop smiling when I read it, so I thought I'd point it out.
There's a FABULOUS letter on the YALSA listserv (http://lists.ala.org/wws/info/yalsa-bk (http://lists.ala.org/wws/info/yalsa-bk)) by Dr. Dresang. She's sending it in to the NY Times with the request to " to investigate what [she considers] the 'slanted and sensational tone' of the New York Times article, "With Single Word, a Children's Book Stirs a Battle" by reporter Julie Bosman." It's an articulate & passionate response--while still utilizing argumentative tactics and logic. I couldn't stop smiling when I read it, so I thought I'd point it out.