Anyhow, 'The Higher Power of Lucky' by Susan Patron has just won a Newbery Medal - one of the most prestigious awards for Childrens Fiction in the world! - yet has caused uproar for refering to a rattle snake biting a dog's scrotum on the first page. It has caused so much uproar in fact some School Librarians have chose to censor it.

Admittedly I haven't got any children yet, but can someone tell me what is inappropiate about the word scrotum? is it not a correct anatomical term? Does anyone else find it sad that such a great book should be banned for a single innocuous word like that?

Here's the full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/books/18newb.html?e x=1329454800&en=0abee8846d8919f4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[This message has been edited by Zoot (edited February 25, 2007).]

The complaints I've read about "Lucky" is that the author "didn't know her audience." One must ask: is her audience children? Or is her audience the plethora of librarians across the country who make the decisions on which books to purchase for children?

Librarians take a lot of heat for the books they choose if parents take issue for the choices. I remember years ago, I co-founded a Montessori pre-school and our beginning library was made from donated books. We immediately had two parents object to a book entitled "The Wizard of Wallaby Wallow" because it contained "magic." Mind you, the parents objecting hadn't even READ the book.

I truly doubt that any author who has been awarded the Newbery is going to be hurting, either for sales or for future offers from publishers. Frankly, all the hullaballo about the book is probably the best publicity she could have gotten.

Sorry I'm not familiar enough with horses to know all the intricacies of cleaning. I was at a fair where some people had a pony and the guy said, "He needs to be cleaned up again," and the woman proceeded to clean...*that*...with her bare hands. I thought, my gosh, I wouldn't touch that with my bare hands for a goodish bit of money! I'd probably have a special cloth, maybe even gloves. Is using a cloth or gloves for this task considered unforgivably effete? Is bare hands usual, or only done in some cases?

I loved Bridge to Tarabithia as a kid. We just took our kids to see the movie. They acutally did a good job with the story. Both my son (8) and I cried. Anyway, is it appropriate to have a MC death in a kid's book? Depends on your POV.

Let's face it if a snake is going to bite a dog there are a limited number of choices on where. I would think a bite on the muzzle would be more likely but . . . as long as it fits the story, I'd be okay with it. In fact, I'd be more offended if she didn't use the proper word and called it something silly (no offense to InarticulateBabbler) than using the right word.

A cottonmouth took a chunk out of my gelding's (castrated male horse) leg near his hock (that's essentially his knee for all you non-horse people). Our best bet is that the horse rolled on the snake from where the bite was. Anyway, the darned thing struck higher than I would have expected.

Assuming that in Lucky it made sense that the snake was somehow under the dog before it struck, the location makes a lot of sense to me.

As I said I wouldnt have a problem with the whole thing so much if it wasn't a correct anatomical term, say something like 'giggleberries' (never heard them called that before!) or the 'dog's bollocks', which incidently in Britain means something cool.

And did anyone notice the objecting comments in the last paragraph that said 'there was no place for men's genatalia in good literature'? Which makes we wonder whether these people actually read the book.

Any road I guess there's more tragic things going on in the world right now but do-gooders are one of my current hobby-horses. We have them this side of the Atlantic, too...

My comment was, in effect, to show that I thought that the critics were too damned serious.

Furthermore, I don't know if the snakebite is important to the story, but I assume it does. How hard do you consider your opening page?

Well, this is more of a young adult novel than a kid's book. It's got 144 pages. It's probably on a par with The life of Pi which had occasion to discuss bodily functions one way or another.

Turns out it's now the ALA Newberry award. I guess this is just another volley in the culture war.

Now the complaints about the use of "scrotum" seem even less justified. And I am a father who reads YA books to his kids.

In the context that it is used (a little girl eavesdropping on a COMPLETELY ADULT conversation, and a little girl trying to guess what the word means--wrongly, I might add) I think the term is necessary. She's not just throwing "scrotum" around (pun intended), someone else is using it, and drilling the unfamiliar term into her head. And it COULD have been replaced by myriad stronger slang terms.

I am reminded of a car trip with my cousins when I was eight or nine:

One of my cousins was my age, the other a year older. When Steve (the older) called Joe an "erection", an argument ensued as to whether or not the claim was legitimate.

Since the car had no muffler, the debate was clearly heard only from the backseat. My aunt was oblivious. Until..

Joe leaned forward, between the seats, and asked, "Mom?"

"Yes?" she replied.

"What's an erection?"

My aunt broke out with laughter, but she never got upset. She didn't go on a hunt for the Steve's source of the word, either. And, that day we all learned what an erection was. The definition confused us even more. Even Steve had not really understood the insult he tried to use. Consequently, the word was never again used in that context.

On simply hearing that a "dog's scrotum" was mentioned in the first few paragraphs of a children's/YA book, I wondered how it could be justified. But, I gave the author the benfit-of-the-doubt. I don't take Those-Who-Would-Censor all that serious anyway. However, I could understand--at just knowing that the word "scrotum" was used--why people WOULD get upset.

But the librarians and parents who wish to censor the book are making a common mistake: They aren't reading it, to see if their concerns are justified.

Taken out of context, I could make comic strip tell you to murder somebody.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a snake biting a dog's s scrotum because, having one myself, the idea seems painful. I can feel for the dog.

SPOILERS

The dog killed the snake, which probably would have struck the dog's incapacitated owner, then the owner's wife took the dog to the vet and left incapacitated owner. This experience caused the owner to realize that he really shouldn't be alive anymore, so he joined AA. Not only might the snake have bit him, but he was unable to help his dog, though fortunately someone had. The wife kept the dog.

As far as the book is concerned, I read some of the comments by some of the librarians and had to wonder where the h*** they're educating librarians these days. A less salacious scene is hard to even imagine than the one the word is used in. Lordy.

I know a young boy relating the story would probably not say scrotum, he'd say balls or nuts.

A young girl would probably say "down there" or "privates" some such euphemism, depending on who she was relating the story too.

Of course I haven't read the piece, so it may be perfectly in line with the tone and voice.

As a father of two young girls (9 and 11) I would not be overly concerned in them reading "scrotum", "balls" or "nuts" in that context. I would also expect them to giggle...