Letters

Limited budgets make controversial literature an easy target

I felt that “A Dirty Little Secret” (February 2009, pp. 26–30) was trying to justify controversial literature and chastise librarians. The “dirty” fact is that there probably isn’t a library in the country that has unlimited funding to purchase everything they want or even need. Librarians must make purchasing decisions every day with the funds they have. Controversial literature makes an easy target... maybe that isn’t fair, but it’s reality. Young adult authors who write about explicit sexual situations, violence, homosexuality, racism, religion, and use objectionable language must live with the probability of taking some heat and occasionally being censored.

As a Pre-K–6 library teacher and a longtime subscriber to SLJ, I find it sad and ironic that what I must self-censor in my school library is SLJ, in particular the February 2009 issue with “A Dirty Little Secret” as the cover story. In recent years, there have been numerous SLJ covers that have pushed the boundaries. I can no longer leave SLJ lying cover-side up on my desk; I must flip it over or camouflage it. My students do not need to see the words “virginity,” “scrotum,” “knocked-up,” or “oral sex” on the cover of a magazine on my desk. The shock value of recent covers has become tiresome. Your target audience is adult professionals, not prepubescent teens easily titillated by certain words. Less is more. Please.

I just finished “A Dirty Little Secret” and felt I needed to write. I am proud to say I have almost every book cited in the article, and although I don’t always put them first in recommendations to my teenage students, I do put them on display at times and talk to the students about them when I see them in their hands. If loss indicates popularity, The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things has been popular here, as several copies have disappeared from the collection. I try to read books that I see flagged as problematic, although I do miss some. If I think a student needs to know something about a book, I mention it in passing, never making it into an issue.

The fact that these books get students reading has always been the most important factor to me. I often bemoan that my students don’t read more, and I buy series fiction, problem novels, graphic novels, chick lit, GLBTQ books, anything I can find that will encourage them. In my 31 years as a school librarian, I have had few questions about books I selected, and only one formal challenge. I do consider myself lucky on that account.

I find my self-esteem lowered by recent articles in SLJ: apparently I’m a self-censoring hypocrite. I didn’t purchase Boy Toy although hopefully I’m redeemed by including Lolita, Election, and All Souls in my library collection.

Also, I neglected to purchase The Evolution Debate although SLJ states that it is an “impeccably balanced presentation of the arguments on both sides of the heated debate....” My intellectually deprived students will have to make do with The Origin of Species and other critical analyses of Darwin’s work. They will have to seek fiction in other sections of the library, I’m afraid.

I’d like to restore my self-confidence and trust my professional judgment; maybe the solution is skipping the next few issues of SLJ.

I cannot stand this any longer. Film, literature, clothing etc., is moving to the realm of “anything goes, so why don’t we stop the debates and not have standards?” Should we try and shelter our kids anymore? I guess not.

If the reality of the teen world has sunk to foul language, sexual games and abuse, and other behaviors that used to be considered not healthy for teens, I guess we just cannot fight it any longer. When articles like this [“A Dirty Little Secret”] are written, those of us who still believe in decency just shake our heads and wonder, where is this all going to lead? If these books become more and more graphic because this is a teen’s reality, then my God, what is happening to our teenagers? I really feel that in about 10 years porn will be very common, and I am so sorry.

In “A Dirty Little Secret,” you write that if we don’t select the books you think we should, then we are self-censors. Who are you to say that you know our students and parents better than we do? Who are you to say that you know our community better than we do? Your article smacks of condescension and intolerance for people who might have a point of view different from your own.

I realize that it’s bad form to object to a review of one’s own book, but there is such a serious error in Ellen Heath’s review of my book What Darwin Saw: The Journey That Changed the World that I believe it harms my credibility as an author. Although the review is basically positive, Heath writes: “Schanzer’s dedication is to her rabbi grandfather, who served as an advisor to Clarence Darrow at the Scopes trial, but in this book for young children, the controversies that surround Darwin’s theory are not presented.”

In fact, the controversies are discussed in great detail, even though this is a 48- page picture book in which each word must be meted out with care to make room for the artwork. I set out the two arguments regarding the biblical version of creation versus newer ideas about evolution on page 38. I follow the controversy on pages 44 and 45, first explaining how Darwin didn’t publish his ideas for 20 years because of the ruckus he could create over these two conflicting versions, and then including a wordy page about the ensuing uproar that clearly includes arguments from both sides; the very same arguments that are still being made today.

If reviewers like or dislike my work, it’s certainly their prerogative to say so. But to misrepresent this book by a failure to read it carefully is not only inappropriate and unprofessional, but it cuts into my livelihood through no fault of my own. Like many other author/illustrators, I spent over two years working on the book to make sure it was more than just engaging; it had to be accurate and fair in every single detail. The reviewer is obligated to be equally accurate and fair as well.

I am dismayed by Rosalyn Schanzer’s response to my review. The statement that she considers negative was not intended to be. As a reviewer of many books about Darwin, I was sensitive to the need of librarians to know if the books they purchased would have controversial information about Creationism and Intelligent Design for young children. It was my intention in making that statement in a positive review to let librarians know that, considering the young age level for which it was intended, the book was appropriately free of information on court cases and current conflicts.

I can assure the author that I read the book several times before writing the review. If there is an error, it is in my writing, not my careful reading of the work. I can see that a more correct statement would have been, “Schanzer’s dedication is to her rabbi grandfather, who served as an advisor to Clarence Darrow at the Scopes trial, but, appropriately, in this book for young children, the Scopes trial and current controversies that surround Darwin’s theory are not presented.”

I apologize for the pain I have caused. I do not feel that fewer librarians will purchase the book because of my original statement. What Darwin Saw is a fine book, and I included it in the Focus On article in the March issue of SLJ, recommending it for purchase by all libraries building their collections on Charles Darwin.