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.

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

links