Comments on: Show Some Balls for the Children

By: adam

adam — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:24:13 +0000

I don’t think that ‘writing fiction’ is the same as ‘lying’, unless the author is claiming to be writing a true account of past events and is, instead, writing fiction (in which case the lie is still not in the writing of the fiction, but in the misrepresentation of what it is).

I can’t believe that someone with a dastardly plot to outrage the panty-wetting hysterics that constitute much of the socon gang would merely execute this plan with a reference to a dog’s scrotum. I mean, seriously.

The only effect that not knowing the word ’scrotum’ would have had on my life is that I’d be able to drive past the town of ‘Scotrun’ in PA without doubletaking at the signs on I80.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:38:04 +0000

I don’t think we should even waste our time asking the question of whether she was deliberately fanning the flames of conservative outrage. I don’t think she was, but one shouldn’t remove books from shelves just because the author may have had it in for prudish idiots. The fact is that the book as written just shouldn’t be considered offensive.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:50:27 +0000

If the author can show documentation that shows this particular word sailed through all her drafts unedited, and her editor and publisher went through all their rewrites and discussions without commenting, then I’ll believe her.

Children’s books get analysed to death. Of course I think the author is lying. That’s how fiction writers earn their living.

By: Alex R

Alex R — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:13:50 +0000

Lablemming referred to the author of the book as “intentionally fanning the flames” of conservative outrage. This response is the sort of thing I am talking about — what indication of *any* kind is there that the author is deliberately trying to provoke conservatives? Indeed, as it says in the article: “Ms. Patron said she was stunned by the objections.” Is Lablemming accusing the author of lying, or did he simply not read the article? I will say that if I were a librarian, reviewing this book for my library, it simply would not have occurred to me that someone might object to this…

The only ones who are “starting fights for publicity purposes” it seems to me, are those raising these objections.

By: Arun

Arun — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:45:24 +0000

Well, let’s make it recommended reading for school children. Why not?

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:01:15 +0000

It doesn’t seem relevant to this post and thread Arun.

By: Arun

Arun — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:56:59 +0000

Why not argue about this book?
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/180462

By: Yvette

Yvette — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:07:27 +0000

Did anyone else here ever read Lois Lowry’s The Giver when it first came out in ~1994? It also won the Newbery, and covers topics like war, sex/hormones, indaviduality vs conformity, the murder of babies and the elderly, and all sorts of things like that.

I read it. In second grade. No one cared, and in fact teachers and librarians were avidly encouraging their students to read it because it’s the great work of literature it truly is. So why the huge uproar now?

By: Charon

Charon — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:02:31 +0000

I grew up in a household that didn’t use swearwords, so I can actually remember learning my first one from a friend in kindergarden. By first grade I knew most of them, since I had, for example, a friend who used the word “fuck” every other sentence. Any elementary school child, no matter how sheltered at home, will know those words. Though they may not know “scrotum” since, you know, it’s not a swearword.

Amusingly, since I was of a learned bent even in elementary school, and my parents had a prominently displayed unabridged dictionary in our house, all the children at my elementary school would ask me what the swearwords actually meant

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:04:51 +0000

On the other hand, how does rewarding the author for intentionally fanning the flames of protectionist conservatives move us towards a more unified, harmonious culture?

Starting fights for publicity purposes does not strike me as a particularly noble activity.

By: Jeremy Chapman

Jeremy Chapman — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:03:24 +0000

That’s both funny and unfortunate. Sadly I’m not surprised by the objection, but I’m glad there are people out there like me who object to the objection.

By: Alex R

Alex R — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:57:46 +0000

I find this whole story very depressing. To me the fact that there is even a controversy at all indicates two things: (1) There *is* a culture war, and (2) The good guys may not be losing, but they aren’t winning either.

I don’t even know what else to say — the whole idea that the word “scrotum” would be considered objectionable for kids of any age, much less middle schoolers, is so incomprehensible to me…

By: EDT

EDT — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:04:19 +0000

Sean-

Starting at the “Andrea Koch…” line the posting starts gradually shifting to the left. The shift increasese with every paragraph/section break. I’m using IE6 on Win2k. I’m also getting an “Error on Page” message:

Line 55, Char 3 document.GetElementByID is null or not an object.

This is a new occurrence. Normally it looks fine.
Thanks,
-EDT

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:31:43 +0000

EDT, it looks okay to me. What operating system/browser combination are you using?

By: EDT

EDT — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:31:50 +0000

Am I the only one who has the left-hand side of the postings clipped by the border?

-EDT

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:16:19 +0000

Well Rover, if we’re going to ban bad literature that’s a whole other discussion, but it doesn’t amount to siding with the prudes. I would have thought that the book having won awards would at least suggest that it is quite well done.

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:04:03 +0000

“Snake” refers to evil and temptation and sin only in the Christian worldview. Why should I accept that?

By: Rover

Rover — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:00:05 +0000

When I read that the story begins with a snake biting a dog on the balls, I thought this must be one of Aesop’s fables, incorporating a moral lesson suitable for presentation to children. But what is the moral here? Well, I would have to read the rest of this intriguing tale to make a judgement. But it’s hard to imagine that a snake has ever really bitten a dog on the balls outside the Dahmer property in Akron, Ohio, and I wonder about the pertinence of this story to anything worthwhile. I tend to side with the prudes on this one. Not because of the word ’scrotum’, but because of the stupidity of the story.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:16:56 +0000

I don’t like “evil” but “temptation” could be fun!

By: spyder

spyder — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:07:18 +0000

Damn words, they are so well armed and powerful. Must be hard for them to carry around all these nuclear weapons, cruise missles and cluster bombs. Scrotum obviously is longer and thus stronger (it kicks ass) than nuts or balls, so we have much to fear from it. It is a good and just thing we have so many word police out there, otherwise we would need a giant army to keep words at bay. Next thing we know, we might even have to use them ourselves; they are that insidious and full of treachery. I say it is time to neuter and spay all words.

Doesn’t the word “snake” allude to evil and temptation and sin and all that? It must be a very powerful and bad word too. Spank that term!