The Newbery award winning book this year — The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron who is also a librarian — contains the word scrotum, not once, but a few times. Apparently this is a problem for some librarians and parents who have been challenging and/or removing the book from school library shelves according to some short discussion on LM_NET (link dead, search the archives here). I read the mailing list archives and it didn’t seem like a big brouhaha to me, but feel free to read it over yourselves. Thanks to the power of the blogonets, you can read the author’s response to the criticisms as well as a response from AS IF, young adult authors who support intellectual freedom.
Update: The New York Times has also mentioned this story, but I’m not sure how they thought librarian.net was an “electronic mailing list.” They also go on to claim “Authors of children’s books sometimes sneak in a single touchy word or paragraph, leaving librarians to choose whether to ban an entire book over one offending phrase” which I have never heard of before, either the sneaking or the banning. If anyone would like to enlighten me to other examples in the comments, I’d appreciate it. Also note, if it’s unclear or maybe you haven’t been here before and don’t know the place, I think the scrotum-bashers are over the top on this.
No problem! Simply replace the offending word with one suggested by the Sex Lexis website (http://www.sex-lexis.com/) — here’s a few possibles…
hairy-saddlebags, jewel-box, nad-bag, sack-o’-nuts, tadpole-carrier, winky-bag
Jeez, What a bunch of sad sacks. Don’t they have anything better to do than hang around, itching for a fight?
it’s a shame that a librarian has the idea that they can dictate what my child reads as well as learns, because they don’t want to approach the “word.” Shame on you for being a closeted censor and educational bigot.
Never ceases to amaze me how immature, prudish and provincial grown adults—in the education field, no less—act.
Shame on all you librarians for not stocking the book for an “offensive” word. You should all be fired.
Want to put people to fright? Simply write a book that contains the proper word for a part of the body in it. No, it doesn’t have to be slang or dirty or anything risque–just the proper name for a body part. Now watch the bluenoses, censors, and religious right, as well as the prigs and prudes, break into a self-righteous sweat. What about the dictionaries, anatomy books, and medical texts that contain the word “scrotum”? Are you going to yank them from the shelves? Are these jabbering fools actually thinking, “He was a good kid until he saw the word “scrotum”?
Apparently this is part of a trend of censoring the proper names for body parts so that they don’t need to be explained to children. Exhibit 2, The Hoohah Monologues:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/08/the_hoohah_monologue.html
So is there a special library school these librarians are going to, where they graduate without much appreciation for freedom of speech?
We need some more sexy female Jewish librarians for they can put everything straight at once with two balls and a whistle.
It scares me to know that we are this petty about what we are banning from our children. Do we ever wonder what kind of kids we are raising when we can’t let them learn or read anything about the REAL world. People are so fragile now days and can not understand good reading, good poetry or good anything for that matter because we are so quick to judge and censor someone elses work. I would be happy to let my children read this book, because I am a good parent who chooses to let my children learn the realities thay lie before them in life.
These so called “educated” people are having a problem with a word in a book? Why don’t all of you read Fahrenheit 451? I believe they banned books in that “perfect” society also. Let the parents decide if that book is suitable for their children. It’s not your call. Personally it’s a scientific anatomical word for a male’s sexual organ. There could have been worse words used. Maybe the problem is that these librarians feel uncomfortable with the word themselves…
The more information young minds have, the better decisions they will be able to make for all the inevitable situations they will find themselves in throughout their young lives. Withholding any information from them that they seek will only do harm. How cowardly of the adults to choose censorship over informing the young minds entrusted to them.
This is most certainly a tragedy of society. Children today don’t read enough as it is. They need to be provided all of the books possible and be encouraged to read. Im sure we should censor Mark Twain because of the offensive words in his books… Public teachers especially have NO right to censor this peice of art. One of the reasons America is so great is because we give this creative freedom to all, students, teachers, and authors. But I guess they have a point, there is better content on television… right?
Some parts of the body are evil and should not be acknowleged. We should be thankful for the Christian librarians who show us the righteous path.
Is the word scrotum in the dictionary? If so, better keep that away from the kiddies as well…
There is nothing Christian, or innately good, about censoring children from REALITY. They are going to have to deal with it eventually.
This book is an excellent way to ease children into the sensitive topic of ‘private’ body parts.
Better get rid of the dictionary while you’re at it. Scrotum is one of the less offensive words in there…
I support a UK-based male cancer charity, and the yongest case of testicular cancer I’ve heard of was age 12. In that light, this kind of censorship seems not only ridiculous, but downright malicious.
What is the logic behind letting your child know the medical term but not the slang?
Please explain why one is ok and the other is not?
Sent to Ms. Patron:
“…I read your explanation in the NY Times “It’s one of those words that’s so interesting because of the sound of the word.†Bravo!
I immediately thought of a childhood experience I had that was just like that. I had come across the word “orgasm” somehow. I don’t know how, but I thought it was the most interesting sounding word. Mostly because it sounded just like “organism” but a bit different. I remember running around the elementary school playground saying “orgasm, organism, orgasm, organism”. In the end, the only people who were offended or felt shame at my use of the word were the close minded elementary school teachers in my small rural eastern oregon town. It’s unfortunate when adults project their fears and insecurities onto children.
After school that day I asked my mom what an “orgasm” was, she explained – very simply that it was how you “felt when you have sex, because it feels good.” Done, easy. No harm and I learned that It was not in fact a different kind of organism as I had imagined.
I hope sharing this story helps you to fend off any worry about the absurd people who are deciding to “ban” your book. Children everywhere will be so glad to be treated like people by your book. I think I’ll order some copies and have them delivered to my old elementary school…”
The scriptures tell us that we shall not say ‘scrotum’. Technically, the author wrote scrotum and did not say it, so the book should not be burned.
Once again I am thankful to live in oh-so-enlightened Massachusetts. A few more thoughts about all of this at:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=buzzblog
scrotum, balls, bags, nuts, hairy marbles, jewels, who the hell cares…
Come one people, its a body part. It’s like they said elbow, just a body part. They’re going to find out what it really means someday, or most of them already know. Lighten up!
It’s a perfectly reasonable anatomical term, and if it has a “bathroom” connotation to it will cause many children to keep reading…which has a lot more merit than any damage done because they learned the correct name “scrotum” rather than any of it’s many slang terms. Keeping private body part names secret is the type of behavior that causes kids to forage around for information…on the internet or any number of other seedy places… wherever they can find it. In a Newberry award winning book is the right place..if they don’t know what scrotum means they’ll ask a parent or teacher, and a simple answer will demystify. Uptight adults yield stressed and confused children.
There’s an awful lot of people around who simply don’t know any better or refuse to have a good and healthy look at reality, since reality will set the world as they know it completely up side down.
Librarians of the conservative kind follow the lines set out through their own upbringing interlaced with indoctrination brought on by religion and power…nothing new there, as a matter of fact has everything to do with survival!
It’s a bitch to be a librarian in rural America, seven letters in a book can make a huge difference when one has to rub shoulders with parents in church right?
Knowing that these days kids get their information through many more channels than the ones we used to provide them with, we’d better pay close attention to how we bring them up as aware as humanly possible…..not just according to the rules of our community and congregation!!!
Carpe Scrotum.
I think the word “scrotum” should be banned. And while we’re at it, “penis” and “vagina” are very unpleasant, also. And perhaps we should ban the word “sex,” because it’s very hard to answer questions about that one. And “coitus” is especially troublesome. “Intercourse” could denote conversation, so let’s leave that one.
It would be much easier if babies were neutered at birth, and we could just remove all these abhorrable words from the dictionary. And breasts, now there’s another troubling subject. There must be a way to nip them in the bud when the “anti-males” are born.
Life would be so much more pleasant if we could just do all this correctly in the first place.
Hanging out there like a dangling participle, the word, scrotum should be better contained. Seize the moment to utilize the street words for scrotum that the kids are already using to teach the kids metaphor!
Empower the little nuts. The kids, too.
If the writer had used the word “balls”, every child over the age of 5 (OK, maybe even 4) in the country would know exactly what that meant. Why can words like kill, shoot, war, and so many other words of violence be used in children’s books, but not a part of the body? Shame on all the phony teachers, parents, and yes librarians who would censor this word.
I think it is awful to remove the book based on the word; are there no anatomy books in libraries? It is just a body part, like an arm or a leg, it is not an expletive. This book can’t mention a scrotum, but yet a kid can walk two rows down to the science section and read an anatomy/physiology text and read about a penis, a vagina, or a scrotum; it makes no sense at all.
vargina
While I am not sure kids need to be pointed in that general direction, one really needs to take the entire story into context.
Also, there can be no true harm-morally- if kids are able to understand and identify body parts in a non-sexualized way. Having that knowlege may actually futher help them understand the scientific foundation for some moral suggestions.
Then again though, if you don’t think “Scrotum” is going to become a raging epithet among the 4th grade crowd, just wait a while. It will catch on.
naman for the win!
Well, the whole scrotum debate got me onto this site, which is a good outcome since librarians are among my most beloved people, and the blog archive entry on this site about a book blog introduced me to sculptor Barbara Yates. I did a little research on her and put a small entry on my own blog, http://museumgeeks.blogspot.com, if anyone’s interested. (I have to say having scrotum lead to librarian lead to sculpture is one of the more bizarre associations I can think of!)
GOOD GRIEF “KILL” IS A MUCH WORSE THEN SCROTUM, WHICH IS JUST A BODY PART-LEAVE THAT AUTHOR BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh what a fuss… Scrotum is only a word for goodness sakes, I find the words like slice, cruxifiction and batter more subjectively violent.
In fact, as an English Lecturer at Christ Church College, Oxford, I have one thing to say to them in the spirit of Oxford learning, education and tradition. Bollocks to the lot of them!
it’s funny that there was just a story about how Liberians want to be seen as relevant and not stereotyped as spinsters who wear buns and glasses(can i say buns). Liberians are file clerks possessing the lowest degree it is possible to obtain. plus the book is stupid. no kid would say scrotum when he meant balls. the author did this purposely knowing the impact would help sales.
This strikes me as the type of ignorant self-righteous extremism that we are waging wars against in places like Afghanistan. If you, as a parent or educator, are unable or unwilling to explain what a scrotum is, our children are in deep trouble. How can educating children to the proper name of a body part, that at least half of them are already very familiar with, be harmful? As a parent, I would like my children to feel that they could talk to or ask me about anything. I feel sorry for kids with parents who lack the ability to get beyond their own medieval prudish hang-ups. If children need “protection” from enlightenment, we’re headed in the wrong direction. Sadly, I’m certain that if the rattle snake had bitten the dog’s “peepee†all would be fine (except for the dog, of course.)
After learning (from his father) earlier in the day at the park the two dogs he saw (one with a scrotum) were making puppies. Later that night he walked in on mom and dad (another scrotum sighting) and said daddy, what are you and mommy doing? His dad replied we’re making a little baby brother or sister for you to play with. After some thought the little boy said turn mommy over I’d rather have a puppy!
Here’s to puppies, with or without scrotums :-)
I just posted a perfectly good comment. Did you decide to censor it because I used these words: f-word and assholes?
Jo Manning, librarian and writer
Yep, I think that’s what you did, you censored my comment. Shame on you.
====
From the NY Times article:
Ms. Nilsson, reached at Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango, Colo., said she had heard from dozens of librarians who agreed with her stance. “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship,†she said. “But you won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.â€
====
Has ANYONE yet noticed that the context is NOT about men’s genitalia here but about an animals, specifically a dog? At what point did this become about HUMAN body parts?
(Not to distract from already great discussions about censorship, but it seems way overblown on both sides that fail to acknowledge that this is — technically speaking — all about animal anatomy and not about human anatomy at all. I understand that they are “the same” in the big picture, but the whole debate is about pointing out human genitalia to children. Anyone thought about merely pointing out what children are going to notice about their domestic pets anyway?)
It is time that our children learn all body parts by the correct name. What a great opportunity for a parent or librarian to talk about another body part. How many adults use “balls” instead of scrotum. It is time to learn the correct term at a young age, and it becomes a normal addition to a child’s vocabulary.
I am the proud owner of a 1954-vintage scrotum (standard model). I give it little thought or attention during the course of an average day, and it’s rather dismaying to note that there are those who do, particularly when the scrotum in question isn’t even theirs (and a fictional DOG’s, at that!).
To ban a work (even one that has not won the Newbery Medal) is not only ludicrous, but counterproductive (from the viewpoint of those who would ban it, or merely fail to purchase it for a school library in a safe and cowardly act of paternalistic omission).
There is no more clinical word as “scrotum,” as blodless and sexless as “pericardium,” “breast” (savage, as in William Congreve’s famous phrase, or turkey, or chicken), or “vagina” (whether or not said vagina is capable of delivering a monologue). To any of these perfectly respectable words is to confer on them, in the adolescent mind, the imprimatur of essential forbidden fruit, that will, ultimately, be discussed and inevitably distorted in furtive student-only conversation.
Better that children be apprised of their various body parts as part of a structured curriculum (including worthy works of fiction), than in gym locker rooms and under the hall stairs at lunchtime; otherwise censorious librarians, school boards and parents may just find that, due to their own unreasonable fears, the rattlesnake is taking aim on THEIR scrotums, irrespective of whether or not nature issued them one a birth.
The instigator of the original affair may have been more prescient than expected:
The Latinate scrotum has a more interesting lexical cousin; scortum: prostitute or sex-fiend (of either gender). Thus: scrotum scorti: the sex-fiend’s scrotum.
A more complete alliterative experience will require that “smegma” be introduced into the above, but that is left as an exercise for the reader …
Anyone remember that the same thing happened with Maurice Sendak’s In The Night Kitchen because Sendak drew Mickey naked, complete with penis? Apparently there are libraries that clothed him with a diaper.
Librarians, teachers and parents uncomfortable with body-part explanations should simply use the opportunity to educate the curious child about the wide variety of reference materials available, including the library catalog (mine directs scrotum-searchers to the Harvard Medical School Guide to Men’s Health), dictionaries & encyclopedias, and online sources such as MedlinePlus. Let ’em look it up–then commend them on their newly-acquired research skills.
Anyway, as anyone familiar with children knows, many fourth-graders are already quite practiced in finding those “forbidden” words in the dictionary (or these days, Wikipedia or Google), and are neither as sheltered nor as easily shocked as we think.
To Jessamyn: I LOVE that you have tagged this post with “scrotum.”
As a teacher, I am continually amazed at the willingness of many educators to censor material for the most ridiculous reasons. I suspect that these attitudes contribute to the overall failure of this society to answer our children’s questions regarding any topic that hints of anything remotely sexual, and thanks to the commercialization of our society, that includes questions about our body parts. The human body has been objectified and sexualized to the point that even a librarian, it seems, might have a hard time explaining the word “scrotum” without going into sexual detail. How sad is that? I completely respect parent’s wishes regarding what their children read, but I have a problem with parents (or others) who feel the need to censor reading material for everyone. Censorship has been, and always will be, a slippery slope. Here’s a suggestion for the would be censors out there: Please read the whole book, at least. The image of an adult scan-ning through a book, looking for “naughty” words is far more disturb-ing than the word “scrotum” and much harder to explain to a student.
I do not understand what the issue is all about. There is nothing immoral, illegal or improper about the word scrotum even for a 10 year old. It is the correct word to describe an anatomical part.
My 5 year old grandson once used the word vagina to refer to the anatomical part and he did so without any malice but simply as a label. It is those who make a fuss about the use of the word scrotum in a book for 10 year olds or younger who put malice to the term.
I must say that this incident reminds me of daily stupidity one encounters in librarianship. I have for the very longest time thought that librarians should adopt Venus Murtia as a patron saint. Murtia was the goddess of sloth, cowardice and laziness.
Once again — I thank my lucky stars that I’m not working in a charnel house ….er library.