Letters

Sexual Abuse Isn’t Sex 
The complicated and fascinating subject addressed in “A Dirty Little Secret” (February 2009, pp. 26–30) is one that librarians and educators should be looking at closely while examining their selection policies.

However, I’d like to ask you to reconsider your language in the first paragraph. It is inappropriate and incorrect to say that Boy Toy is the story of “a 12-year-old who has sex with a beautiful teacher twice his age.” Josh does not “have sex” with Eve; he is sexually abused and molested by her. Would we be as quick to use the phrase “have sex” to describe what happens between Eve and Josh if the genders in this story were reversed?

Using minimizing language to describe abuse distorts the power, originality, and bravery of Lyga’s narrative and is misleading. It is also inaccurate and, somewhat ironically, a form of censorship that avoids speaking clearly about what happens to Josh. Josh is Eve’s victim; saying that they “have sex” is implying a consensual relationship that Lyga makes brilliantly clear does not exist. Minimizing language is part of a larger problem of how we talk about and think about sexual assault and molestation, or, more accurately, how we don’t talk about it. Since Lyga has gone out of his way to create a narrative that forces discussion of these issues by describing the emotional scars left by molestation, I think that the power and the bravery of Barry Lyga’s choices deserve to be correctly identified and discussed.

All Together Now 
Thank you so much for writing about what is not always obvious. Here in Pennsylvania, public libraries are trying to convince legislators of exactly what you have written about (“Civil Unrest,” February 2009, p. 9). We know that formulating our state budget is extremely difficult and that reductions in many areas are necessary, but the proposed cuts for public libraries (among them a possible elimination of Power Library, the state-funded databases and interlibrary loan), might eliminate much-needed services that affect those who are homeschooled, as well as students in schools and universities along with public libraries.

The reductions in state funding will most certainly result in reduced public library services and hours at a time when we are busier than ever. We do need to stand together to advocate for all types of libraries.

In Praise of 'SLJ’ 
In a time when so many things are being cut and downsized, I wanted to express my appreciation for School Library Journal. I have worked as a school librarian for 11 years and cannot imagine doing my job effectively without the magazine’s helpful articles and reviews. It seems that every issue provides an article that I want to share with a colleague, and I am thankful for the increasing number of technology tips that keep me a few steps ahead of our IT staff! Your Web site is equally helpful—easy to search and full of informative sites.

I am sure that you often receive letters from frustrated readers who don’t want to “have their buttons pushed” —I’m not one of them! Your stories, whether traditional or controversial, help me better understand the world of literature and libraries, and the world of the teachers that I support. Please keep up the good work!

Bluebird or Blue Bird? 
As I read the review of Pamela Kirby’s What Bluebirds Do (Boyds Mills; May 2009, p. 95), I was interested in the accompanying picture on the preceding page, which is captioned with the book’s title and copyright 2009 by Pamela F. Kirby. The picture attributed to the author is not a bluebird. As an avid birdwatcher, I can identify the bird in the photo as an indigo bunting, not any of the three bluebird species in the United States. I am wondering if this is an author mistake or an SLJ mistake. If it is an author mistake, the accuracy of the review is in question.

Our Editor Replies 
The choice of the indigo bunting photo was definitely an SLJ mistake, not the author’s. It does appear in the book and is properly identified as a blue bird, not one of three bluebird species that live in North America. We apologize for the confusion.