not everyone's happy!

out of control

From Kirkus Reviews , March 15, 1993

Perhaps it wasn't exactly a rape, but Valerie knows that those few moments when she was cornered in the school corridor have changed her forever. The nightmares may fade, but she'll never regain her trust in a safe world. With great skill and compassion, Mazer endows the cast of this familiar drama with real individuality. Two of the boys are school leaders with home problems to fuel the anger they act out in mean-spirited pranks; the third--oversize, relatively nice Rollo (whose point of view prevails)--is a follower, thoughtlessly caught up in the excitement of his friends' misdeeds. The student grapevine is swift, adding embarrassment to Valerie's pain; and she gets little sympathy from a principal who thinks first of ``damage control.'' In time, she and some other girls begin to exchange similar experiences, helping her make the decision to write a letter, describing her trauma, to a local paper. Meanwhile, though the other boys persist in thinking the incident was ``no big deal,'' Rollo worries and tries to open communication with Valerie. Still, when she challenges him to imagine himself in her position, he simply doesn't get it--somehow, he persists, he would have been strong enough to escape. Accessible, but far from simplistic, Mazer's balanced depiction of both sides is a powerful demonstration of the evils of harassment and how its victims can assert themselves; it may even help harassers see the other side.

(Fiction. 12-17) -- Copyright ©1993

not really so new

"New Realism" (not very new any longer; the term is dated) dominates the pre-and-young adolescent market. I think this movement to find literature that appeals to this previously-overlooked, huge (and money-spending) age group began in 1967 with S. E. Hinton's The Outsiders and was followed in 1968 with Paul Zindel's The Pigman. Some like to look back to 1951 and Salinger's A Catcher in the Rye, which is alternately banned and/or required reading in high-school, but Salinger's book was not really written for adolescents; it's just ended up with them. Others will insist the origins are earlier or later; there were many other titles being published in the mid-60s (two of my favorite titles: Hero Ain't Nothing but a Sandwich and My Darling my Hamburger; I love food); still, Hinton and Zindel cemented this sort of book permanently into the world of children's literature. Whatever history concludes, this field is vital and always hopping with controversy.

The books are about growing up. They exaggerate, they are melodramatic, but they DO deal with issues that pre-teens find relevant. Judy Blume is probably the most popular single author in this area, and her books explore areas which many consider taboo. Her characters feel like they're misfits. Their bodies are doing weird things (growing), they are teased mercilessly about the way they look. In other words, they experience things that real children experience. Real children are afraid to talk about it. Blume gives a voice to their anxieties.

In addition to budding sexuality, the books showcase all sorts of "issues": AIDS, retardation, alcoholism, drug abuse, rape, gangs, child abuse, latch-key kids, teen pregnancy, discrimination (for any number of reasons), and any other issue that might show up on Oprah or 60-Minutes. The conflicts in AVI's Nothing but the Truth may not actually be documentary (as the sub-title of the book suggests), but they are the sorts of topics widely discussed. There is a brutal satire of school administration that is more interested in job preservation than the simple truth; there is the teacher falsely accused of wrongdoing who is then put on extended leave because the publicity will be bad for the institution; there is the media that panders to a good story rather than honest journalism; there are political opportunists who manipulate the situation for personal gain; there are parents who assume their child could not be telling a lie even though the evidence suggests otherwise. The book is cynical, but it works because it reflects the feelings that many have about all of the groups represented.

Like Oprah the books are incredibly popular, much to the chagrin of some parents and teachers (many of whom enjoy watching Oprah and the other daytime talk shows themselves).

Is it realism? Not exactly. These books are novels, stories; they are crafted to move readers along with their drama. Norma Fox Mazer's Out of Control has much of the style and impact of a bestselling potboiler. But the surroundings are modern, the concerns are genuine concerns, they have the aura of realism, and many readers find them more meaningful than other sorts of children's literature.

As pre-teen and teen books explore more topical and sensitive subject matter, the opposite trend, the push to make sure that "offensive" material does not reach children grows as well.

toss another book on the fire!

jamie

What Jamie Saw by Carolyn Coman was a Newbury Honor Book in 1996. The book deals with the very real subjects of child and spousal abuse and the effects they have on the entire family. From its opening line Coman's writing is lyrical and powerful:

"When Jamie saw him throw the baby, saw Van throw the little baby, saw Van throw his little sister Nin, when Jamie saw Van throw his baby sister Nin, then they moved."

The book has sparked some controversy.

Here is a review of the book on amazon.com:

What Jamie Saw, and what your children should never see May 1, 2000
Reviewer: A reader from Kanosh, Utah, USA

What do you think, in real life, are the chances of a mother entering a room in the very same instance that her baby is being hurled through the air--and that mother being quick and agile enough to catch the baby before it hits the wall? In real life the baby would be dead. But what is even more unrealistic is for this book to carry a Newberry Honor award. What are we doing in letting a book on wife and child abuse slip into the hands of the very children we are trying to save from the savage actions of sick adults.

"What Jamie Saw," came to our school in a book fair. I bought fifty dollars worth of children's books that day, and "What Jamie Saw," was one of them. I finished the book then took it to the PTA president; she immediately pulled the book from the fair, and chucked them in the garbage where they belonged.

I encourage you, as Parents, to read this book so you can see for yourselves what type of literature (under the Newberry Award symbol) is being shoved in your childrens' faces.

"What Jamie Saw," is simply a book your children should never see.

--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

The most telling part of the review is not that the parent found the material difficult, disturbing, objectionable, inappropriate for her child; parents brand books and music and television shows for whatever reasons every day. The most telling part is where she took the book "to the PTA president; she immediately pulled the book from the fair, and chucked them in the garbage where they belonged."
[my italics]

I recently asked a class of Freshman Composition students if they thought censorship existed in the United States today; many (over half) were positive: "NO! Not in the U.S.!"

They need to visit Kanosh, Utah.

or just about anywhere

Not too long ago the reading of "Little Red Riding Hood" was forbidden in one of the local school districts here in California. I mentioned this to the same class, and they wrestled with the "why" for a few minutes. They were surprised that the book was not banned because of its violence to animals and old women and little girls, not because a youngster was allowed to go off and talk to strangers in the woods (where were her parents?), not even because the wolf (in the Perrault version) invited Little Red to lie down beside him in bed. "Little Red Riding Hood" was banned because in the basket of goodies she brings to grandma there is a bottle of wine; it seems that Red is an "alcoholic enabler."

It's not a problem though. The UPDATED versions of the story (complete with sweet, Holly Hobbiesque, pastel drawings) have Little Red Riding Hood carrying cakes and cookies to grandma (I imagine they are low-cholesterol and with no processed sugar); when the wolf reaches the cottage he does not gobble up grandma but, instead, locks her in a closet; Little Red is also not eaten, only scared; finally, when the woodsman (why not a woodsperson?) arrives, he shoos the wolf away rather than chop him open with his axe (which should keep PETA content).

Books, especially children's books are challenged and/or banned often.

thoughts of a banned author

In the introduction to Places I Never Meant to Be: Original Stories by Censored Authors Judy Blume (who nearly always makes the lists of "most challenged books" and "most challenged authors") writes,

The obsession with banning books continues as we approach the year 2000. Today is is not only Sex, Swear Words and Lack of Moral Tone - it is Evil, which, according to the censors, can be found lurking everywhere. Stories about Halloween, witches and devils are all suspect for promoting Satanism. Romeo and Juliet is under fire for promoting suicide; Madeline L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time, for promoting New Age-ism. If the censors had their way it would be good-bye Shakespeare as well as science fiction. There's not an ism you can think of that's not bringing some book to the battlefield.

What I worry about most is the loss to young people. If no one speaks out for them, if they don't speak out for themselves, all they'll get for required reading will be the most bland books available. And instead of finding the information they need at the library, instead of finding the novels that illuminate life, they will find only those materials to which nobody could possibly object. ...

And the demands are not all coming from the religious right. No...the urge to decide not only what's right for their kids but for all kids has caught on with others across the political spectrum. Each year Huckleberry Finn is challenged and sometimes removed from the classroom because, to some, its language, which includes racial epithets, is offensive. Better to acknowledge the language, bring it out in the open, and discuss why the book remains important than to ban it. Teachers and parents can talk with their students and children about any book considered controversial.

Nearly every item on our reading list has been challenged or banned at some time or other, for some reason or other. The Giver was on the 1998 "Most Challenged Books" list; the Harry Potter series tops the 1999 list.

Even Seedfolks, which most readers find positive, without being overly sentimental, has been attacked for the Maricela chapter. Again, the reason may surprise you. The complaint is not that the chapter makes the unwed, pregnant teenager Hispanic, thereby demeaning a minority group; the complaint is that Maricela does not show proper maternal instincts; she does not love the baby inside her. In fact, she resents it and the boy who got her pregnant and her parents and her one-time friends. She's bitter.

It would be silly to deny that a young woman in her position might possibly feel exactly as Maricela does. Reality doesn't seem to matter. What matters is protecting the kids, the readers.

The thinking is that children should be kept away from stories that talk of child and spousal abuse, that talk of menstruation and nocturnal emissions, that talk of gangs, pregnancy, alcohol, aids, retardation, bullies, prejudice--anything unpleasant.

Then there is always the other side. Here is another review of What Jamie Saw from amazon.com:

Jamesean book for young and adult readers January 30, 2000
Reviewer: A reader from Ithaca, NY

Those complaining about a lack of action miss the boat--and it doesn't matter whether they're sixth graders or sixty year olds. The book is not driven by event, but by perception, and, just like "What Maisie Knew," whose title it echoes, the point is to show us how Jamie thinks and feels about a situation beyond his control and in some senses beyond his ability to make sense. No, it's not full of Harry Potter-ish magic (which I do like) or graphic violence, it asks its readers, in language young readers CAN understand, to value spending some time inside someone else's mind and emotions.

--This text refers to the Paperback edition.

so what's actually being banned?

The following button will take you to about.com's page on banned children's books; do a search on the WEB, and you'll find a lot more: