Letters

Survey excludes different categories of literature

"What's to blame?" SLJ asks, for the "decline" in reading literature reported in the National Endowment for the Art's (NEA) document, "Reading at Risk" ("Librarians Respond to Decline in Reading," September 2004, p. 17).

It is not clear that any decline has taken place. The NEA counted only novels (in book form), poetry, and plays, as literature, excluding magazines, on-line reading, and graphic novels. As Karen Louise Boothe noted in the article, "the definition of literature has broadened."

According to Reading at Risk, 9.3 percent of those surveyed listen to books on tape, an option that was certainly not as widespread a decade ago. Most likely, many people have transferred some of their reading to books on tape, accounting for some of the "decline."

Data from earlier surveys suggests that the "decline" may not be stable: In 1945, 41 percent said they read literature, less than the current figure (this figure did not include poetry and plays, however).

Finally, there is no evidence that intellectual life in the U. S. is declining. There has been no change since 1982 in the percentage of people who do creative writing, attend plays and operas, go to art museums and use public libraries.

Reading At Risk ignores those truly at risk. Research shows that children of poverty have little access to reading material at school, at home, and in their communities, and as a result they lag behind children from higher income families on reading tests. Research also tells us that when people have access to interesting and comprehensible reading material, they usually read it. It is thus no surprise that studies show a relationship between library quality (school and public) to the amount read, and to reading competence. The obvious solution is improving library quality for those who need libraries the most.
Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

This letter is in response to "You Go, Girl!" (July 2004, pp. 38–40).

While I admire the author's commitment to fitness, I am concerned with some of the stereotypes she seems to perpetuate, both about librarians and about overweight people. The author equates her own commitment to fitness and related weight loss with an increase in energy and vitality. I would like to point out that many overweight people DO exercise, and that being overweight does not automatically mean one is lazy or sedentary. An active, overweight person may in fact be more "in shape" than a sedentary, thin person.

I believe that in order to shatter stereotypes, the key is to accept a wide (and thin) range of body sizes and fitness levels among librarians, and, by extension, all people. Rather than all seeking to transform our bodies into thinness, it is more important to show that people come in all shapes and sizes. We are working with students who are exposed to unrealistic media portrayals of beauty and in danger of developing related eating disorders, we need to be very careful about criticizing certain body types.

In short, it is wonderful to commit to fitness, but it can also be acceptable (and healthy) to make peace with a larger body size. Even if we all do become fit and thin, we also need to acknowledge and model that being larger is also "ok."
Maria Knopp, Librarian, Gen. Nash Elementary School, Harleysville, PA

Having just read "You Go, Girl!" in the July issue of School Library Journal (pp.38–40), I was appalled that an article that encourages librarians to "shape up, slim down, shatter the stereotype" perpetuates the stereotype. Not all librarians are girls. Some of us are decidedly male, and proud of it. I have been a school librarian for 20 years and often have to overcome the stereotype that librarians are women, not men. While Cathy Belben makes some good points about losing weight, she should be careful next time to include her male colleagues in an article about librarian stereotypes.
Mike Grimm, Librarian, Fowlerville Junior High School, Fowlerville, MI

I am just beginning to read my April 2004 issue of SLJ despite all that free time you ascribe to my position: "no weekends, no summers." ("More Pay for Public Librarians," p. 13). My first reaction of disbelief turned rapidly to outrage. I cast no aspersions on public librarians; however, I do question those you appear to cast on me and my fellow school librarians, so I'd like to set the record straight: I work constantly and still always fall behind. I have no free time—I barely have a life. I do not make a huge salary—my mailman makes more than I do—and although I have an A.B., an M.S., and credits toward my doctorate, I am often considered a second-class citizen by some faculty members and parents, despite all my efforts. I do this because I love what I do. I resent editorials suggesting that I and my colleagues reap lots of money for an easy ride and do not depend on the whim or exigencies of public opinion. I have long since ceased to be an ALA member: the last straw was the shocking discovery that I am not to be called a librarian, since I am "just" a school librarian, or worse, a "media specialist."

I believe wholeheartedly that public librarians deserve more pay. Each person who has been my incredibly talented aide/assistant in the library has gone on to a public library position. It is unfair to them, as it is to me, when you pretend there is a dichotomy separating us, which would force us to devalue our counterparts to gain status for ourselves. This perpetuates the "school librarian is not a real librarian" myth; it encourages infighting rather than cooperation and creates an unflattering image of petty squabbling for the public to remember.

With few review journals for use in collection development, you know you have something of a captive audience. You know that what you write becomes public. It is important for you to use your bully pulpit to help us serve our various constituencies, rather than making our professional functions even more difficult.
Ava Biffer, Library Media Specialist, Nathan Hale-Ray Middle School, Moodus, CT

It was an unfortunate surprise to read the review for Lorenzo Liberto's Matt the Rat (Harvest Sun, 2004; September p. 197). There should be no place in a respectable publication for the cynical and derisive language that was exhibited in the review. To refute the reviewer's comment about the Matt the Rat illustrations, it's important to note the contrasting opinion held by Foreword Magazine's reviewer who said the books were "colorfully illustrated and engaging." Furthermore, whereas the SLJ reviewer also faulted the fashion of our verse in our books, The Santa Fe New Mexican said of the same text that "young readers will delight in the prose style that rhymes in both languages." Finally, in contrast to the SLJ reviewer's presumptive conclusion, the reviewer for the U.S. Education Department's National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition called the series "child-friendly literature filled with rhyming, and rich with imagination." SLJ readers should be entitled to these additional opinions.
Matthew Moscato, Publisher, Harvest Sun Press, LLC, Fairacres, NM