LS 521 Journal Entry for 02/27/07

So Lucky is still in the news and the irony is that the more the book gets talked about the more it is going to sell and well isn't that exactly what every author wants -- For Their Book To Fly Off The Shelves!!

Apparently the Ladies of ABC's The View have taken notice and dared to say the naughty 'scrotum' word live on the air. However Barbara Walters did refer to the Newbery Award using the wrong name and also seemed to be confused regarding banning a book and challenging a book according to the reports I read.

I also read an account of a Librarian from New Mexico's account of when she read the book to some children and think it is worth noting. So here it is:

I read the opening 2 or 3 pages of Lucky to a third grade class this afternoon. I prefaced the reading by saying this was this year's Newbery award winner, and that it also was the subject of a front page article in the New York Times over the weekend because some people had objected to something in the first couple of pages. I told them I would read the beginning of the book to them, and for them to listen very carefully to see if they could figure out what was objected to. I did give them a little background on Lucky and AA, and Hard Pan so they'd have a little context.

I read from the beginning through the snakebite sentence, and although I shot a glance out over the room, no one giggled or reacted in any way. I read a a couple of paragraphs more, then asked if anyone had any idea yet. Like Monica's students, a couple of children suggested the
drinking and smoking as objectionable.

So, I told them that it was the part about the dog being bitten on the scrotum, which was a part of male mammal anatomy. They looked at me rather incredulously, like why would anyone object to that?

Then I read a bit more, and at the second mention of the incident, where it talks about the dog being bitten in a most sensitive place, some of them giggled.

I finished Sammy's story about Roy, and the kids didn't want to hear any more, even though I gave them a bit of a synopsis of the basic situation of the story. Actually, as I read about Sammy being dead drunk, I began to feel uncomfortable reading this to third-graders -- more
uncomfortable than reading the word "scrotum." I've been thinking all the rest of the afternoon about why this book is over the heads of third graders. Although I hesitate to generalize about
age groups (I had some excellent readers in this group, and some very sharp students), I think that developmentally the book is more suited to slightly older students -- 4th and maybe even better 5th or 6th graders. Part of it is the structure of the book -- the movement back and forth between Sammy's story and Lucky's listening, and her thoughts as she listens, which makes the story much more reflective than plot-driven. Awareness of the complexities of the adult world at the level presented here is, I think, beyond the developmental level of most third graders. Perhaps they are not yet able to move that far beyond themselves. I think interest in issues of the adult world increases as they become 4th and 5th and 6th graders. Indeed, Patron has said that she wrote the book for the 10-year-old inside of her.

Next step is to try this out on some older kids, or give it to their teachers to read.

The kids didn't even notice the naughty bits. When are adults going to learn that kids get their ideas from adults. Hopefully they get their morals and ideals from their parents as well. In my opinion there are a lot worse words out there that I have heard young kids use in normal conversation that I don't think I learned until I was high school. Gah! People are goofy sometimes especially the adults that are supposed to be in charge. Do we lose brain function as we get older or something? Thankfully as pop music has told us, "The Children are Our Future," I just hope we don't ruin it for them.