Scared of 'Scrotum’?

As a librarian who has worked with and for children for over 30 years, I sometimes despair of my fellow professionals. I do not understand why the word “scrotum” should be so frightening that we have to protect children from its very existence. It is not a swear word and has no political or religious meaning or connotation. Let’s encourage children to play with language and enjoy reading. The Higher Power of Lucky was chosen as the Newbery winner because it has wonderful characters; a plot that has humor, drama, and even a surprise twist; and a writing style that many authors would envy. Don’t deprive children of this terrific book. They will find it anyway, you know.

I was shocked and shocked some more to discover that fellow librarians are even considering not purchasing, and not reading, The Higher Power of Lucky. What is wrong with this country? Last time I looked, scrotum was just another body part. In addition, the book is well written and has a lot to offer on so many levels. I am glad sales have soared, I will watch David Letterman, and I will showcase this book in my library.

As the Newbery Honor recipients, we wanted to share our feelings on the current Newbery discussions. We are delighted and honored to be in the wonderful company of Susan Patron and her incredible book, The Higher Power of Lucky. We support her creative vision and hope that the present controversy will not overshadow her remarkable achievement. Readers everywhere, young and old, are truly lucky to have such a book in their schools, libraries, stores, and in the world.

Jennifer Holm, Kirby Larson, & Cynthia Lord, authors

In her letter (January 2007, p. 13), Wendy North interprets my article, “Free Reading” (September 2006, pp. 42–45), as saying that access to books and free reading are all you need to improve literacy.

As I emphasized in the last paragraph of the article, my position is that access and free reading are not always sufficient. They are, however, necessary.

Contrary to Ms. North’s statement, there is no “nationwide” literacy crisis. There is, however, a problem of low literacy development among children of poverty. Children of poverty get plenty of instruction on “deciphering the code,” but have very little access to books. They typically live in neighborhoods with inferior school libraries, attend schools with inferior classroom and school libraries, and have few books in the home (see, for example, recent research by Susan Neuman and Donna Celano in the Reading Research Quarterly).

There is no doubt, as Ms. North maintains, that children benefit a great deal from help in book selection, and they also benefit from read-alouds and discussions about reading, but without access to interesting reading material, it is unlikely that they will develop beyond the lowest levels of literacy.

Stephen Krashen, author

Concerning Ms. Scheps’s response (December 2006, p. 13) to Martha Shogren’s objections to John Boyne’s The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (Random, 2006; September 2006, p. 202) and the starred rating given it by Scheps and SLJ’s book review editors, I trust that all of them will be there to work with young readers who may not understand the allegory (to use Ms. Scheps’s word in place of Boyne’s word “fable”) and explain what was allegorical and what was historically “realistic.” If Boyne wishes readers to see his glib and life-cheapening work as a fable, so be it. Maybe we should remember that fables carry within them a “narration intended to enforce a useful truth.” By the author’s own definition it is not an allegory. And if it is, as Ms. Scheps insists, what is allegorical about it? And what is the useful truth readers are to derive? That it is better to be a Nazi? That it is better not to be a young Jewish boy? That it is better to be a boy in Berlin with friends and not a German boy in gray and treeless Poland? Will Ms. Scheps and the editors of SLJ’s book review explain what happened to kindly physician Pavlov who worked in the kitchen?

When they explain all the mysteries of Pajamas to readers, will they explain what the pajamas signify (a penultimate dehumanization of Jews and others, “sub-humans.” Is Shmuel really sub-human?); that “out-with” is humanity’s ultimate degradation of humanity? Will our guides explain what “out-with” was? Boyne’s book never does. Boyne’s book never explains to readers whose knowledge of history is weak or nonexistent exactly what happened—and why.

I am tired beyond tired and remain distraught that people like Scheps and the SLJ editors can award such a self-conscious and propagandistic book a recommendation for first purchase, must purchase. Would I have had it in a library? Yes—but only to demonstrate how the printed word can distort and lie—something Paul Joseph Goebbels should have taught all of us.

Ms. Gordon states that fables carry within them a “narration intended to enforce a useful truth.” I suppose the “useful truth” in Boyne’s novel is that it shows that, in the end, evil perpetrated by human beings upon other human beings does not necessarily go “unpunished.” In Boyne’s tale, the lives of Bruno’s whole family are deeply (and rightfully) affected by his father’s actions on behalf of the Führer. In my review, I referred to the book as a “sort of historical allegory” because the juxtaposition of the tale—so that we are looking at a historical situation from the point of view of someone who has no knowledge or understanding of the situation (i.e., Bruno)—makes it allegorical rather than realistic.

I stated in my review that the book is intended “for those who already have some knowledge of Hitler’s Final Solution. The review recommends it for grades 9 and up. Although the main character is a young boy, this novel is intended for teen and adult readers.

As to the statement that it is a “propagandist book,” that it is “glib and life-cheapening,” I cannot agree. Many incidents in the story, although fictional, exhibit historical accuracy. In my point of view, the book, read as historical allegory or fable, clearly presents the atmosphere in Nazi Germany, hinting at violence, blind hatred, deplorable conditions, bullying, and fearfulness. At the end of Boyne’s tale, however, the realization of the evil that has been done extracts a measure of justice from the Commandant and his family. I am confident that this book will spark lively and thoughtful discussion of genocide, how it is allowed to happen, and that there can be no confusing innocence with ignorance.