What to do About Sexually Explicit Teen Books?
A poster, plan2succeed.org, has posted some thoughts that I think get to the heart of the issue in the censorship of children's book. I thought they deserved to be highlighted in their own post:
Plan2succeed.org, I think you raise some interesting points. But do keep in mind that all "young adult literature" is not necessarily ALL for ages "12 and up." How could it? The difference between a 12 year-old and an 18 year-old is HUGE.
The genre actually divides roughly into three categories: lower YA (10-14), mid-range YA (12-16), and upper YA (14 or 15 and up). LOOKING FOR ALASKA is definitely upper YA, as are most of the Printz selections. That means they're typically "age-appropriate" for high school students. (For the record, LFA is about as sexually explicit as teen books ever get, IMHO.)
Also keep in mind: the "children's" section of a library also includes a "teen" section. So the only way LFA is going to be read or seen by anyone younger than a teen is if that kid is in the "teen" section (much the way a kid could also be in the "adult" section).
Would some parents not want their teens reading LFA? Absolutely. That's why it's essential that parents be involved in their teenager's lives, aware of the books they're reading.
I know that sounds like a cop-out, putting the responsibility on parents. It's a LIBRARY, right? The "teen" section, but still. Parents don't want to have to constantly monitor everything that their teenager is doing at every second. And they want to think that a library is a "safe" space for them, especially in terms of age-appropriate materials.
But what's the alternative? Are librarians supposed to decide for everyone what books are and are not appropriate for which kids for the whole community? To some degree, they do do this in the books they buy, but only in very broad terms. They have to leave the individual decisions to...well, individuals and individual families. That's because parents are all going to choose differently, based on their values, their interests, their kids' interests, the maturity of their kids, etc. etc. If librarians were take it upon themselves to censor certain teen books and topics from their collections, they wouldn't be doing what it is they exist to do, which is serve the ENTIRE community. (They would also be stigmatizing certain topics and members of the community, gay folks most definitely, which, as I've blogged before, I think it absolutely criminal.)
Think about how wildly different the values in any given community are. There are people who wouldn't want their children exposed to any book that criticizes the president, for example, or America, or Christianity. Should their values rule? What about the vegetarian who thinks it's immoral to shoot an animal and doesn't want his children exposed to that? Should these values by the deciding ones?
These are extreme examples, obviously, much the way LOOKING FOR ALASKA is an extreme example, in terms of sexuality.
(And we can't put the issue of homosexuality completely aside. There ARE lot of people, maybe even majorities in some communities, who think that children's and teen books with gay themes should be segregated, or not purchased at all. So should their values rule?)
There's also the fact that teens themselves are a diverse lot, and so are teen books. It would be ridiculous to restrict a "teen" collection so that the youngest teenager could read every book in the collection.
I think the only way to settle this clash of ideas and values, age groups and maturity levels is for librarians to stock the books that are sold and marketed as "teen" books in the "teen" section, and then leave it up to individuals and individual families to decide which of those books they want to read.
In the end, are some kids going to encounter books that some parents might not want them seeing? Perhaps. But that is the cost of ensuring that the library can meet the needs of as many people in the community as possible. In short, they're erring on the side of, well, freedom and liberty.
I know this is a complicated issue, with shades of grey. But I do think that these are important things to remember.
Anyway, thanks for contributing, Plan2succeed.org. I'm happy to hear others' thoughts!
Brent Hartinger
P.S. As an author, I would be perfectly happy to decide which books kids get to read. I pick mine! ;-)
You guys being authors, I have great respect for you. Let me ask you some questions. First, I am specifically not addressing the issue of homosexuality. To me, that is up to the people themselves, and books containing homosexual characters or themes should not be separated solely because of such characters or themes. So let's set that aside for now.And my response:
My problem is with sexually inappropriate books for children. Whether they involve homosexual or heterosexual or animal-human sexual activity to me is irrelevant -- the problem to me is the sexual content being inappropriate for children.
Look for example at "Looking For Alaska" by John Green. That book gets awarded the ALA's top honor for "young adult" books, the 2006 Michael L. Printz Award. The "academy awards" as YALSA head Pam Spencer Holley puts it. I read the entire book. It is very well written and entertaining. But on the issue of appropriateness for children, the book contains what I consider to be hard core sexuality. A boy pulls out his penis, she puts it in her mouth, and on and on.
Now "young adults" being defined by the ALA to be as young as 12, i.e., not even teenagers, let alone not even adults, are finding that the best book of 2006 for 12 year olds as recommended by the ALA is a book containing hard core sexual activity. The fact that the ALA awarded the book as its top YA book of 2006 means the book will be read widely thanks to local librarians and school librarians following the ALA's lead.
I'll set aside for now why librarians get to decide what's the best book for children instead of authors like yourselves who actually write the books.
Now let's all assume for the sake of argument that a book about detailed oral sex experiences is inappropriate for 12 year olds.
The question becomes could such a book be taken out of the children's section and placed into the adult section. That's the nut.
The ALA says no, it's not a librarian's decision. As Judith Krug said, it's real life issues so kids should read about real life issues to become an educated electorate.
I'm not sure how you authors would approach this since I narrowed down the hypothetical to winnow out extraneous issues.
But, in your responses, please discuss what you think the answer should be. Then, read US v. ALA and also Board of Education v. Pico, two US Supreme Court cases I believe to be relevant, and describe if reading those cases makes you change your answer in any significant way and why.
I thank you for your interest in this matter and I look forward to your responses.
Plan2succeed.org, I think you raise some interesting points. But do keep in mind that all "young adult literature" is not necessarily ALL for ages "12 and up." How could it? The difference between a 12 year-old and an 18 year-old is HUGE.
The genre actually divides roughly into three categories: lower YA (10-14), mid-range YA (12-16), and upper YA (14 or 15 and up). LOOKING FOR ALASKA is definitely upper YA, as are most of the Printz selections. That means they're typically "age-appropriate" for high school students. (For the record, LFA is about as sexually explicit as teen books ever get, IMHO.)
Also keep in mind: the "children's" section of a library also includes a "teen" section. So the only way LFA is going to be read or seen by anyone younger than a teen is if that kid is in the "teen" section (much the way a kid could also be in the "adult" section).
Would some parents not want their teens reading LFA? Absolutely. That's why it's essential that parents be involved in their teenager's lives, aware of the books they're reading.
I know that sounds like a cop-out, putting the responsibility on parents. It's a LIBRARY, right? The "teen" section, but still. Parents don't want to have to constantly monitor everything that their teenager is doing at every second. And they want to think that a library is a "safe" space for them, especially in terms of age-appropriate materials.
But what's the alternative? Are librarians supposed to decide for everyone what books are and are not appropriate for which kids for the whole community? To some degree, they do do this in the books they buy, but only in very broad terms. They have to leave the individual decisions to...well, individuals and individual families. That's because parents are all going to choose differently, based on their values, their interests, their kids' interests, the maturity of their kids, etc. etc. If librarians were take it upon themselves to censor certain teen books and topics from their collections, they wouldn't be doing what it is they exist to do, which is serve the ENTIRE community. (They would also be stigmatizing certain topics and members of the community, gay folks most definitely, which, as I've blogged before, I think it absolutely criminal.)
Think about how wildly different the values in any given community are. There are people who wouldn't want their children exposed to any book that criticizes the president, for example, or America, or Christianity. Should their values rule? What about the vegetarian who thinks it's immoral to shoot an animal and doesn't want his children exposed to that? Should these values by the deciding ones?
These are extreme examples, obviously, much the way LOOKING FOR ALASKA is an extreme example, in terms of sexuality.
(And we can't put the issue of homosexuality completely aside. There ARE lot of people, maybe even majorities in some communities, who think that children's and teen books with gay themes should be segregated, or not purchased at all. So should their values rule?)
There's also the fact that teens themselves are a diverse lot, and so are teen books. It would be ridiculous to restrict a "teen" collection so that the youngest teenager could read every book in the collection.
I think the only way to settle this clash of ideas and values, age groups and maturity levels is for librarians to stock the books that are sold and marketed as "teen" books in the "teen" section, and then leave it up to individuals and individual families to decide which of those books they want to read.
In the end, are some kids going to encounter books that some parents might not want them seeing? Perhaps. But that is the cost of ensuring that the library can meet the needs of as many people in the community as possible. In short, they're erring on the side of, well, freedom and liberty.
I know this is a complicated issue, with shades of grey. But I do think that these are important things to remember.
Anyway, thanks for contributing, Plan2succeed.org. I'm happy to hear others' thoughts!
Brent Hartinger
P.S. As an author, I would be perfectly happy to decide which books kids get to read. I pick mine! ;-)
posted by Brent Hartinger at 11:19 PM
75 Comments:
Brent,
As a librarian who ends up explaining this over and over and over and over on the internet...
I think I'll just link to this post from now on. Beautifully stated.
Marla
Thanks, Marla.
Why do people think that if the ALA didn't award "sexually inappropiate" books (whatever that is) from us we wouldn't find them?
What would anybody ever think that we would read anything that our parents recommend?
Isn't finding things on your own part of the growing process? Isn't the experience of finding a book that you LOVE (and your parents wouldn't), no matter the content, something that will nurture your love for reading?
Why do people think that a 12 year old cannot have the maturity to read "sexually inappropiate" content?
And what do you think would happen to a kid that reads it? A trauma for life? Nightmares?
I don't see what's the big deal. Really
--from a 12 year old kid who loves reading those books, among others
Uh, Dear Plan2,
The previous post about a game system was spam. That's my fault because I forgot to set the spam blocker up on this website. I've changed that. So it wasn't posted by the other 12 year old anonymous poster. He didn't deserve being chastized.
I don't think you understand what X rated is. It's typically reserved for pornography or extremely violent movies. It's rather insulting to compare the work of writers who often spend years on their "literary" books to pornography. Thanks a lot. Previously you said you have respect for us. I hope you were being genuine.
Your comparison to X rated movies is heavy handed. It's meant to hammer home a point but fails because it's not an adequate or even a proper comparison.
Yes, you're right about librarians and the ALA, though. They do have a secret agenda: they're trying to get kids to read books.
Cheers,
Art
If any on you think that {besides ps2} think Looking for Alaska is appropriate for a 12 year old, you should have your head examined.
Dear Sir or Madam or whatever you are
Art is right, I did not post that thing about the game. I don't do that. And I didn't appreciate you scolding me about it.
I don't think you understand that when you enter middle school, your parents no longer choose any books for you. In fact, I'd run away from any book that my mom ever recommended (For the record, I don't have a dad) as we are totally different and like different things.
Yeah, there might be kids out there who cannot handle some books. I know some. Same way that there were kids who got sick all the time in kindergarten because their parents had kept them away from us, the infectious creatures.
But let me tell you, if I wanted to see pornography, I would check the Internet. There are plenty of sites out there that you can look at. And no, parents can't do anything to prevent us from seeing that either. Because as young and "innocent" as we are, we'll always find the way to go around any parental block in any school or any computer.
I don't like pornography, Sir. I like books. I like reading literature.
You gave me credit for being interested in this matter. Thanks. But with all my respects, I don't think you know much about 12 year olds.
--the 12 year old boy who doesn't know how bad this writing is for him
I don't have time right now to respond to all your points, but I must say, the librarians you describe are NOTHING like the librarians that I know and work with on a daily basis. The librarians I know are very eager to work with parents and readers, to help them determine if a book is appropriate for that reader. I know you said you weren't describing "all" librarians, but I haven't met ANY librarians like the ones you describe, who you suggest take some sort of secret delight in getting explicit books in the hands of younger and younger children. That said, yes, they are quite forceful in thinking that parents and teens who want "edgier" offerings should, in fact, have access to those too.
Incidentally, when you and were kids, the genre of YA basically didn't exist. Teenagers when straight from ISLAND OF THE BLUE DOLPHIN to adult books. This genre is a relatively new phenomenon (for complicated reasons). But since it is appealing to older teens, it makes sense the topics and writing would be edgier.
As for the Printz Award, again, from my POV, the ALA has been VERY clear that this is an award for "upper YA." In fact, that's the whole purpose of the award--a very specific contrast to the Newbery, which has broader appeal. Yes, a book aimed at 12 year-olds is "eligible," but that doesn't mean that every winner is appropriate for a 12 year old. Again, in what world could every book aimed at 12 year-olds also be interesting to 17 year-olds? And again, where do we put books marketed and sold as "teen" books, except in the "teen" section of the library?
I'm a writer of young-adult novels, and I just wanted to add to the discussion that many of us are not just writers, but parents also. Same goes for librarians — this is not a war between besieged parents on one side and the uh, One Ring that Binds Us on the other.
I know as a parent how challenging (sometimes anxiety-attack provoking) it can be to watch our kids develop so quickly from babies to preschoolers to charming little bundles of school-age curiousity and then, in a flash, to tweens and teens who are suddenly not quite under our control anymore and interested in things that seem too much, too soon.
I also understand quite well how terrifying it is to know we are launching our precious children into a culture that our personal values may be quite at odds with.
I do believe that the difficulty of these feelings, this anxiety and terror we sometimes feel as our kids grow up, is a big part of why the idea of BOOKS being the problem or LIBRARIANS being the problem seems to make some intuitive sense to some people. These are concrete targets and they give a false sense that something is being done to alleviate the alleged problem -- that kids as young as 12 can and should be "protected" from the topic of human sexuality.
It makes intuitive sense that the world is flat, too. But it's not.
Books are good for our kids. Librarians are the flame-keepers of our brilliant American traditions of freedom of speech and a tolerant, diverse and secular public life that fully respects the private religious practices of its citizens.
Children and teens are absolutely interested in sexual information, and they are getting plenty of it -- from tv, movies, music, video games, the internet, from each other, from life experience, hopefully from their parents and teachers, and from what they read.
Good books are an excellent source of information for kids. Good books, like Looking for Alaska, show sexual activity in a human context, with feelings and ambivalence and consequences -- just like real life!
Porn is a totally different animal. It's tells a big lie about what sex is like, what desire and fulfillment are, how people should treat each other. It's totally misleading to use the word "porn" to talk about any art that represents human sexuality. That's a big lie too, and it pulls the rug out from any reasoned discussion of this topic.
Kids whose good books are taken out of reach will learn about sexuality from porn, Grand Theft Auto and each other.
Buy them a good book instead. Talk openly about sexual subjects. Make friends with your librarian so you and your kid can be steered toward good books.
We can't keep our kids in bubbles, and we'll always worry that they are growing up too fast in a troubled world. It's important to acknowledge the real anxiety that parents face. Our kids live their lives in a soup of technology-driven communication and information that did not even exist when we were their age, in a culture where nothing is taboo.
That particular horse, however, has already left the barn. It's our job to raise our kids and give them the knowledge and real values to safely navigate this culture, not lock them in towers, or soothe our fears and feelings of helplessness by attacking easy if misguided targets.
Now more than ever, books are good for our kids. Librarians are parents' allies, not our enemies.
respectfully,
Maryrose Wood
This is too much. This is great. This is entertainment of the highest quality.
I should introduce myself first – so that Plan2succeed.org can welcome me to the forum in a polite and friendly before bowing to no argument or reasoning.
I am Australian, I am a creative writing post-graduate student studying young adult writing. I have not read Looking For Alaska. There.
Now – sex sex sex. Yes. Sex sex sex sex. So far we’ve had no less than two 12 year olds declare an interest in books about sex. Not sex itself, but books about it. They’re curious (as we all are) and they’re not growing away from a sexual world, they’re growing towards it, whether they like it or not. Sex is indeed just sex, people touching, feeling, emoting etc. It can be a fine thing. But when it’s compared to drugs, rape and murder by the likes of people like Plan2succeed.org, things get a little confusing.
I realise that the majority of Plan2succeed.org’s debate is centred around the ALA recommending books with sex in them to people as though they didn’t contain any sex. Particularly Judith Krug’s crusade against the recommendations of the Supreme Court seem to be causing a lot of bother. So she’s telling people to spread the information around see what happens. So that could be a little irresponsible. So a twelve-year-old picks up a book with a horrible, nasty sex scene in it. So there are descriptions of penises and vaginas in there. What next? What do you really imagine our sheltered little hypothetical twelve-year-old will do after s/he reads this colourful and graphic scene? Will they cry? Maybe. Will they feel ‘weird’? Maybe. Will they walk around for days afterwards thinking about it? Probably. Is that such a terrible thing? Is it? Do you seriously think that exposure to this kind of material will provoke some kind of immediate, life-changing, unalterable negative effect? Do video games make people violent?
You’ve had the twelve-year-olds saying they’ll read the books anyway. You’ve had authors, librarians and parents all saying that the opportunity to read sex in a book is much worse than the opportunity not to. You’re still not going to be swayed from the opinion that Judith Krug should play by the rules and tell people when there’s sex in books. Maybe you could be suggesting some kind of innovative, standardised ratings system for books like we have for movies and video games instead of railing against Krug’s crusade to end childhood innocence. Although I’m betting that this won’t work as intended by those who put it in place – putting a ‘This book contains sex’ sticker on the front not only demeans literature by categorising novels by the things that offend conservative taste, but it would also have a lot more kids reading those books (you know what I mean). And what is sex in a book? Does a dream count? How about an autobiography? What about metaphor - ‘The man sat in the little boat, rowing as fast as he could’ etc? What about bad sex? What happens when sex is okay, but rape is too much? Someone would write a book whose plot revolved around the nature of consent and then we’d all be stuck.
Let the kids read. Write to the lovely Judith Krug and explain to her your issues with her abuse of power. Let the kids play on the swings and fall off and skin their knees.
Ps. “ I am tired of reading story after story of the latest kid raped or molested somewhere where they would not have been so injured but for the ALA's directives advising people to skirt the law.”
You can’t be serious. Please please please post links to the stories where the ALA is named as responsible for rape and molestation. I can’t believe this story hasn’t received more attention. “Librarians Incite Sex Crimes!” Shocking. Truly shocking.
Wow, have a computer go out on ya, and come back to a full-blown, fascinating debate here on the AS IF! blog...
There's a lot to respond to, and I appreciate Plan2Succeed's willingness to stick with it, debate-wise. I did want to speak to the ding against the ACLU, since they frequently go to bat for authors, and the right to read (as far as I can tell, they usually do the most "American" work of all...)
I also want to underscore Brent's comment about YA being a "new" category -- for those of us graybeards who have since grown up to become writers ourselves...
There were kid books and grown-up books, and I went back and forth and read both, from about nine years old, on.
I read "Manchurian Candidate" in 4th grade (some strong sex stuff there) but at the time, was reading it for the politics. Though later on, I snuck my parents' copies of Henry Miller off their shelves...
...while still reading Ray Bradbury short stories, sci-fi tales, and the occasional "Batman" comic.
(hmmm.. maybe my overall mix hasn't changed all that much...)
I find many more things in society startling and corrosive than oral sex descriptions, and if I'm frequently stumped by which books the ALA chooses to award, it's usually for different reasons entirely.
Hey guys!
Fun stuff. I just gotta say that I feel that Plan is a little off in his understanding of young adults.
I'm a writer for young adults, but I'm also a substitute teacher for area high schools. I love the job because I get to eavesdrop on these kids. I write down conversations, I listen to them in the hall, peek at the books they read and the songs they listen to on their i-Pods and CD players. It's fun.
Man, you would freak out if you've heard some of the things I've overheard! But I think you would also be encouraged. They aren't completely clueless. But they are pretty fixated on, shall I say it, sex.
Remember when you were in high school, and when all the hormones hit, and you had zits and kept falling in love with people who never looked at you, etc.? And there was the little sex thing. Young adults do think about sex in their everyday lives. And if you listen to Hollywood, only one thing matters, just one thing. (Well, okay, let's make it two things and include violence.)
What the novelist has to deal with is treading the path between showing life as it really is and tastefulness. We really do take pains to do this, believe it or not. Our characters are teens, a walking mess of hormones. But different characters respond to sex in different ways. My shy main character sings Broadway musicals in order to cope, i.e., "just singing about sexual tension instead of going out and experiencing it first hand." While the MC of my other novel is -- no way to put this nicely -- a male slut. But he has to start thinking about his choices when he falls devastatingly, Dante-like, in love.
And I just have to say that the ALA doesn't choose books based on their sex scenes, they choose them based on literary content. Go back and read the book, this time paying attention to the book's structure and theme and how this works with plot and characterization. Don't just say, "Yikes, it's a penis!" Every boy has them, I'm told.
Just curious -- do you also worry about the sexual content of grown-up novels? Do adults need to be protected from these?
(Though you gotta admit, there are some adults that could use the help!)
Melinda.
the 12 year old back here
Hey, that Dora thing really freaked me out! And those men in black robes... I don't know, man... you are really scaring me now
I'm out of here
Yep - great tone! Love it, love it. Keep the debate coming. Not really sure what Dora comments are all about, I think we can all understand each other without pretending to cartoon characters.
I believe I understand what your problem is: the Supreme Court has set down some rules. They are a bunch of smart people, they wouldn't just make stuff up on a whim. Their function is to serve the people and to protect them and their interests. The ALA is deliberately disobeying those rules, and that is WRONG. That is naughty and illegal and they should abide by the law.
True.
BUT (he proclaimed, finger held high) laws can be changed and challenged. Laws can change with the times. Laws made with everybody's best interests at heart have been changed before, right? Those changes don't necessarily originate from within the government or judicial systems either. At the risk of sounding patronising: that's democracy.
Surely the ALA is in a better position than a bunch of conservative judges to make decisions about children's/YA literature? Or am I mistaken about the role of the supreme court in the US?
I know they make laws, I know those laws are to be followed by all good citizens, but isn’t becoming apparent through this discussion and the state of contemporary YA literature that those laws need to be challenged?
Plan2 (can I call you Plan2?) you are fighting a two-pronged argument here. Prong one appears to be against the ALA’s breaking of the law, which one would assume they are not doing for no good reason and Prong two appears to be about the exposure of younger-than-you’d-like children being exposed to sexual content. I think Prong one is resisting the idea of any challenge to authority, which is a dangerous thing in itself and Prong two is wildly overstating the impact of sexual content in YA books on young adults and a weeny bit patronising in itself.
Prong three, the linking of reading to sexual abuse, I’m still unclear on. You mentioned it again to Dora and Boots, but left it open. This is very concerning. If you have any evidence linking reading to the sexual abuse of minors (or anyone), please share it with this forum and we will do all we can to stop this horrible chain of cause and effect.
Whoa Bessie!
It sounds to me like you're saying that librarians are encouraging adults to rape and molest kids!
I'd definitely like you to back up that claim. All the librarians I know are nice people and wouldn't go for a thing like that. I myself was interested in getting a library degree, and I never noticed "Committing Sex Crimes" on the curriculum. I don't see articles like that in the ALA Journal, either.
Back up your claims, please. Just because one librarian approves books you don't like doesn't mean that all librarians are depraved.
Melinda.
That's not how I see it, Melinda. It clear to me he is talking about some Krug person at the ALA that somehow is setting some agenda, although I don't see any clear links yet, but I'm beginning to get the point. I looked at his "Support Fund" page. I think he's saying that is an example of a crime that might not have happened if only the library listened to the law (is a court case a law?) instead of the ALA "skirting" the law. Yes? If that's the truth, its pretty bad. Personally, I think the situation must be pretty bad if people have to set up "support funds" for victims of crimes in libraries, even after that case he begs averyone to read.
Hi. I'm a young adult novelist and my books contain some mature content, so to speak. I have been a member of As If! from inception.
I think we often judge young adult literature as if it were giving a message: watch porn! don't watch porn! do drugs! don't do drugs!
As if it were a billboard.
It is literature. It is made for contemplation, discussion, dislike, even.
A book is not a message.
I've read Looking for Alaska. Two teenagers do watch a porn movie for a couple minutes, get bored and turn it off. They are looking for a deeper connection. They are showing off their bravado, and essentially fail. There is a lot of discussion in that book about men idealizing women (sexually and otherwise) and what it means. The porn scene is not porn because it's not in there to titilate. It's in there because Green is exploring these topics intelligently and from many angles. He's not advocating porn, or condemning it, or trying to let us see a little of it even. It's literature, not a billboard for a value system.
Hey anonymous (the latest one) --
As far as I understand it, the law is what is passed by the legislating body (either the state or the national one) and the court cases are interpretations of the law. If the Supreme Court rules to overturn a law, then the new law they've written becomes the norm.
But don't quote me!
Melinda.
Plan2 - sorry mate, it's all just going downhill from here.
You've made your point that laws shouldn't be broken, yet you haven’t provided an alternative to the quite totalitarian view of "We should just always do what they say".
You've made your point that the ALA should provide more detailed information about the subject matter of the books they recommend, yet you haven’t really explored the issues surrounding the subject matter that you feel people should be more informed about. (Nb. You often describe children being exposed to “inappropriate sexual material” – have you thought this concept through? I’d be interested to hear exactly what sexual material you feel is appropriate for 12-year-olds).
It feels like each point you make is boiling down to the same argument: "But it's just WRONG!". That’s all well and good to feel that way, but you never move onto the more taxing questions in life: why?
I believe you are over-simplifying a complicated issue by refusing to enter into a meaningful debate on any of the issues that have been raised in this forum. You’ve never really asked yourself ‘why’ and answered in a defensible way. Understandably. Moral arguments often don’t hold up well under such scrutiny.
Yes, the ALA DOES have its own agenda, I’ll give you that, but I don’t think that it’s “corrupting young people” as you seem to believe, I think their agenda is “promoting reading and thinking”.
They are not the FDA. They are not in place to protect people. No, they’re not. As E. Lockhart so eloquently put it: a book is not a message. Nor is it a command or a text taken as the absolute truth. No book is like that (yes, no book). A book is an organisation of ideas, nothing more.
I believe you are doing readers everywhere a disservice by implying that they don’t have the capacity to handle material written on a page. That’s why every other person on this page is getting all snicketty with you: on a base level, you’re saying that they can’t think for themselves and make judgements about the world around them. Even the 12-year-olds – especially the 12-year-olds.
And one more thing, speaking of agendas: 8-year-old girl molested in bathroom at library by homeless man there to look at internet porn? What could have prevented such a tragedy? The ALA not providing information to libraries about how to avoid internet restrictions? Are you serious? You’re blaming the ALA’s stance on information restriction for that? What about the other factors that could have more easily and forseeably prevented this tragedy? Like:
Children being allowed in public libraries?
Children unsupervised in public libraries?
Internet access in public libraries?
Unmonitored computers where inappropriate material can be accessed in public libraries?
Any naughty material at all in public libraries that people of questionable moral standards can access?
Closed toilet facilities in public libraries?
Security guards in public libraries?
Homeless people allowed in public libraries?
If you were really really concerned about this case, then you would not be trotting it out as “proof” that the ALA’s stance on censorship is resulting in actual harm to the very people it claims to support.
Wow, fascinating thread here.
I am an author and a mom, and a member of AS IF! And while my kids are too young for books like LOOKING FOR ALASKA (which I loved), I think it is up to me to discuss the reasons why with my own children.
Is it possible that one of my kids will pick up a book that I don't feel they are ready for. Yes, yes, of course. I know I read PLENTY of books that would have made my parents cringe.
However, I also read hundreds of wonderful books as well. And honestly, I can't remember any of the salacious books I read. Nor do I recall becoming jaded, a pervert or a sex fiend.
We are not discussing manditory reading here, rather freedom of choice. That said, I think that responsible adults, like parents, teachers and librarians can help guide kids to books they feel they might benefit from. Or at the very least, provide a sounding board to discuss controversial books, their meaning and their content.
But even if a dialog never takes place, to deny a young person the right to choose what they read is a sad state of affairs.
This is getting beyond hysterical! I haven't checked back to a forum site so much in years!
Plan2, I'm sorry - I've over-complicated things. I'll ask you straight out:
If the ALA is made of librarians who know about books'n'stuff and the supreme court is made up of 9 people who are there to interpret long legal documents and principles, who do you think is best suited to make decisions on behalf of contemporary young readers?
If you took the two groups of people out on the street and took a straw poll, who do you think people would pick to scrutinise books for children? a) This bunch of nice people in black robes? or b) The librarians?
I KNOW you're making a point of law. Point taken. I want you to go beyond that and ask WHY this law is being challenged and WHY you have a problem with that. And no sneaking back to "we must obey the constitution". Let the legal stuff go for a moment and think about WHY you keep coming back.
ps. I'm going to keep coming back to this girl in the library. I will not let this rest. Say the library DID have filters and the man DIDN'T visit library ever and the little girl was spared. What if he was at the beach to look at women in bikinis when he decided to attack a little girl? Would you suggest that women cover up on the beach? Could someone conceivably sue a swimwear manufacturor for the attack?
Questions, questions, so many questions and not an answer in sight.
hm, I am looking at Looking for Alaska even as we speak. A signed copy, no less. I have turned this book over and over inside and out and see no age designation. As a parent, I don't care what the ALA says, or where it is shelved. If I am not absolutely sure it is appropriate for my child, I will have to read it first--the WHOLE thing. A pain? An inconvenience? Maybe. But that's what they call parenthood. And if you are not up to the task you better keep your pants buttoned up.
That said, I am a parent advocate. The bottom line: The parent must decide. And the parent's choice must be respected. I don't want ANYONE telling me what my child can or cannot read. It is my responsibility and not someone who barely knows my child. Too often I think we are eager to shed our responsibility because we are "too busy." My response: Get over it. You had a kid. A kid is not a hobby. They are time intensive for 18 years. READ the book if you are not sure about it, before your child reads it. It is YOUR responsiblity.
I live in California. California says a child can drive at 16. Just because my child turns 16 doesn't mean he or she is ready to drive. I don't care what California says, it is MY responsibility to decide if my child is really ready to be behind the wheel of a car. Period.
Plan 2 succeed, I understand your issue with the whole 12-18 thing, and I would agree that Looking for Alaska is probably not appropriate for most 12 year-olds, but looking at the ALA site, no where does it say that it is for 12 year olds. IF you go to the criteria for nominating a book for the Printz, it has to fall within the "range" of 12-18. That is a big difference. Looking for Alaska definitely falls within that range. But ultimately, it doesn't matter what YOU think, or what I think, or even what the ALA thinks. It is what the individual parent thinks. Yep, back to that again. Responsibility. It ain't easy being a parent.
And finally, you questioned "why librarians get to decide what's the best book for children instead of authors like yourselves who actually write the books."
I guess that might point to my book. It won this year's Golden Kite Award for fiction which is awarded by the SCBWI--a writing organization of children's and young adult authors. But the fact that it is awarded by authors does not necessarily mean it is any more or any less appropriate for any particular reader. Personally, I wouldn't give it to my 92 year old grandmother to read, but there are many 16 year olds out there who it would be just right for.
Again, not to belabor this (which I guess I am) but no organization is the bottom line on what should or should not be read. I appreciate your concerns. I am sure you are a very involved parent. But your concern should remain with parenting your own children and not mine. And finally I have to say, I have raised two of the kindest, most thoughful, resourceful, moral, and upstanding young women this world will ever know. You're welcome, world. And I did it without relying on any organizations to tell me what was appropriate for them to read. I trust other parents to do the same. And I trust you to do the same for your children.
"By the way, by my writing all this stuff into this blog, can I now be considered an author? ;-)"
Darn close ; )
Sincerely,
Mary E. Pearson
POSITION: Mom, Mommy, Mama, Ma Dad, Daddy, Dada, Pa
JOB DESCRIPTION: Long term, team players needed, for challenging permanent work in an, often chaotic environment. Candidates must possess excellent communication and organizational skills and be willing to work variable hours, which will include evenings and weekends and frequent 24 hour shifts on call. Some overnight travel required, including trips to primitive camping sites on rainy weekends and endless sports tournaments in far away cities! Travel expenses not reimbursed. Extensive courier duties also required
RESPONSIBILITIES: The rest of your life. Must be willing to be hated, at least temporarily, until someone needs $5. Must be willing to bite tongue repeatedly. Also, must possess the physical stamina of a pack mule and be able to go from zero to 60 mph in three seconds flat in case, this time, the screams from the backyard are not someone just crying wolf. Must be willing to face stimulating technical challenges, such as small gadget repair, mysteriously sluggish toilets and stuck zippers. Must screen phone calls, maintain calendars and coordinate production of multiple homework projects. Must have ability to plan and organize social gatherings for clients of all ages and mental outlooks. Must be willing to be indispensable one minute, an embarrassment the next. Must handle assembly and product safety testing of a half million cheap, plastic toys, and battery operated devices. Must always hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. Must assume final, complete accountability for the quality of the end product. Responsibilities also include floor maintenance and janitorial work throughout the facility.
POSSIBILITY FOR ADVANCEMENT & PROMOTION: None. Your job is to remain in the same position for years, without complaining, constantly retraining and updating your skills, so that those in your charge can ultimately surpass you
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: None required unfortunately. On-the-job training offered on a continually exhausting basis.
WAGES AND COMPENSATION: Get this! You pay them! Offering frequent raises and bonuses. A balloon payment is due when they turn 18 because of the assumption that college will help them become financially independent. When you die, you give them whatever is left. The oddest thing about this reverse-salary scheme is that you actually enjoy it and wish you could only do more.
BENEFITS : While no health or dental insurance, no pension, no tuition reimbursement, no paid holidays and no stock options are offered; this job supplies limitless opportunities for personal growth and free hugs for life if you play your cards right.
QUIRKS : Must rely on other organizations for assistance then be ready at a moment's notice when those organizations are no longer reliable - example - the ALA has reliably recommended books for decades and decades but suddenly starts recommending books parents would never give their kids. Must expect to be told repeatedly by librarians that you are responsible for your own kids, the very same librarians who mislead the parents as to the information you need to make proper judgments about books. In the ALA, you CAN have it both ways! As a parent, you are supposed to be superhuman and remember it doesn't take a village and librarians no longer help you, unless of course the library claims it needs funds to make up for the funds it turned down by refusing to use filtering software. THEN it takes a village. But the village isn't there when you are a grandmother with 2, 3, and 8 year old children and the 8 year old needs to use the bathroom in the public library and your grandkid is attacked brutally by a know offender in an unfiltered library despite the law and the librarians tell you it's your own fault for not watching your own children. THEN it doesn't take a village. Have I gotten this right?
Welcome to UNC-We love kiddieporn, Apr 5, 2006 by Mike S. Adams.
It's still just a book. Where's the harm in reading? You know what your teenager's ready for and what they aren't, as do they.
Why are you fighting the ALA so much? They're just making recommendations. Or I am I seriously mistaken about their role in the US? Do they actually set a standard reading curriculum for schools and thereby forcing kids to read the books they prescribe?
If they are coercing people to read the books they choose, then I withdraw all previous comments to the matter. I was assuming that people had a choice in what they read.
ps. Aaaand back to the girl in the library: no, I wasn't using the beach analogy to imply that the attack was a negligible risk. I was implying that criminals can strike anywhere. I would wager that you would have more sickos at the beach than at the library, drawn by the real ladies in swimsuits, as opposed to the pictures of them in the library. Children are also plentiful and difficult to keep under constant observation in a beach setting. You're blaming the ALA for setting up a policy that attracted the sicko to the library. Who/what would you blame for a sicko at the beach?
I'm guessing that a reasonably analogous entity here would be somewhere between the women's rights movement for letting women out in public and the city council in charge of the beach for allowing semi-clad bathing.
Sorry, I didn't understand your answer. My question still stands:
How are books harmful?
I don't want to know about pictures of pornography on computer screens, just black and white text on a page.
franzy, ever heard of paper cuts?
Plan2 please don't go. I'm learning so much here! I even started to read LFA, and I read all that boring article that I wasn't supposed to read.
--C12yo
Ha!
Nice one.
"Books in themselves are not harmful"
Excellent. We're finally getting somewhere.
Where I think you're still wrong is when you say that you're irrelevant and that you should listen to one set of people over another about what your child reads. I don't think that's thinking for yourself and that's what I've been getting at the whole time.
You say that there must be a reason for the court to make a rule, but you still haven't asked what that reason is (once again, I'm not referring to internet porn, I'm talking about books). Nor have you given a reason (other than personal, moral reasons) why the ALA shouldn't stick to its guns and champion the cause of information dispersal.
You talk about giving Playboy magazines to children and molestations in libraries, but what about a tastefully-done, educational, thought-provoking sex scene in a book aimed at a section of society who spend most of their waking hours worrying about sex?
I'll agree with you, people shouldn't be looking at porn in public libraries, Playboy probably should be kept on the top shelves and laws are generally good things to obey. But not without question or consideration.
(Incidently, the content of the debate on this very site would result in it being blocked by most internet filters in libraries along with the pictures of naked girls because we've been using the words 'sex', 'teen' and 'porn' with gay abandon - oops, there goes another one!)
"I don't think you understand what X rated is." OK, I am one of those ignoramuses who do not understand what X rated is. That said, let Disney film it! It will certainly be rated "G" and shown nationwide in matinées, correct? Who knows, PBS might even put it on right after Sesame Street! Parents will love it, won't they? Why, LFA is NOT X rated, is it? Oh, yeah: and then, force taxpayers to subsidize the dissemination of this material to "Young Adults"!
Hey, Milla. Welcome to our discussion. But what are you _talking_ about? Please construct a logical argument.
Also (and this goes for you too, plan2succeed), it would be great if you chose to shed your anonymity. All of the author/members of this site reveal our real names, and I think it engenders a more honest and civil discourse if nobody is hiding behind a web identity.
Milla - hi!
Thanks for the comment on my blog, but I'd rather keep the debate here where it belongs out in the open, rather than off to one side.
I'm going to post your comment from my blog below, partly to clarify something, but mostly because it actually contains an excerpt from Looking For Alaska, the little book that's causing so much controversy.
[WARNING WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE CONTAINS SEXUAL REFERENCES. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE TO SEXUAL REFERENCES - READ NO FURTHER. IF YOU ARE CURIOUS, READ ON.]
****
posted by: Milla (reply)
post date: 04.10.06 (5:38 pm)
"Plan2Succeed is so characteristic of every pig headed dolt out there with an agenda"... Wow! I'm impressed! So that's how you guys build your arguments...
"Just as the Bradys were getting locked in jail, lara randomly asked me, "Have you ever gotten a blow job?"
[…] "I've just never geeven one," she answered, her little voice dripping with seductiveness. It was so brazen. I thought I would explode. I never thought. I mean, from Alaska, hearing that stuff was one thing. But to hear her sweet little Romanian voice go so sexy all of a sudden . . .
[…] "I think I want to," she said, and we kissed a little, and then […] Lara unbuttoned my pants and pulled my boxers down a little and pulled out my penis.
[…] She looked up at me, but didn't move, her face nanometers away from my penis. "It's weird."
[…] And then she wrapped her hand around it and put it into her mouth. And waited.
[…] Should I do sometheeng?"
"Um. I don't know," I said. Everything I'd learned from watching porn with Alaska suddenly exited my brain. […] "Um. Maybe we should ask Alaska."
So we went to her room and asked Alaska. […] She walked into the bathroom, returned with a tube of toothpaste, and showed us. In detail. Never have I so wanted to be Crest Complete.
Lara and I went back to her room, where she did exactly what Alaska told her to do, and I did exactly what Alaska said I would do, which was die a hundred little ecstatic deaths, my fists clenched, my body shaking. It was my first orgasm with a girl, and afterward I was embarrassed and nervous, and so, clearly, was Lara, who finally broke the silence by asking, "So, want to do some homework?"
Yup, you're right, every parent who's not a "pig headed dolt" should make sure his 12 year-old daughter or sun read Looking for Alaska!
****
Firstly I would like to say: Plan2succeed, I'm sorry. I don't think you’re a pig-headed dolt. That was someone else posting on my blog. I think you have argued strongly and intellectually about a difficult and controversial issue.
Secondly, what is the actual problem with a 12-year-old reading the above passage and the other 150 or so pages of novel around it? Yes, it’s sex. It’s definitely that, but so what?
How long can you hold back 12-year-olds from turning into 13-year-olds?
Well I'm flattered that "Alaska" has been defended so well by so many of my favorite authors, and what means the most to me to be honest is that so many people have said they liked the book. To highlight a few comments:
1. I'm with Mary. I have no problem with a parent reading my book and saying, "Nah, I don't want my child reading this." That's fine. In fact, if I had a 12-year-old, I might not let them read 'Alaska' for any number of reasons.
2. The book has never been marketed to 12-year-olds. Never. It is packaged like an adult book; it doesn't even say it's published by a kids' book imprint on the cover, and it's never shelved in the children's section of bookstores. It's a book for high-school students. Furthermore, the ALA does not hand it to 12-year-olds or say that it's appropriate for 12-year-olds. As Mary also pointed out, it's for a book that falls within an age range that starts at 12 and ends at 18. In my case, the book is published for kids 14 and up.
3. You know, I believe that sexual morality is important. I really do. But Jesus Christ. There comes a point when you begin to confuse having a system of sexual morals with having an actual comprehensive system of morals, and it seems like we're coming to that place in this country. The relentless focus on sex and nothing else--it's sort of weird, really. Why is it that some people find it so repugnant that a book contains a brief, funny scene about how physical intimacy can be uncomfortable and awkward and generally miserable -- and yet no one mentions the fact that it contains teenagers who binge drink and smoke?
Alcohol and tobacco abuse kill a lot more teenagers in this world than blow jobs do, and yet by focusing narrowly in on this one facet of morality, we really do a disservice to the larger moral questions: How should I treat others, and how can I expect myself to be treated by the world? What should I value? What if anything is the meaning of suffering? What are my responsibilities to the social order? How do those responsibilities differ from my responsibilities to my friends?
Those are questions worth asking, and while sexuality has some bearing on those questions, it's certainly not central to them. Maybe I'm crazy, but I've just never thought that sex is THAT important in the scheme of things. And that, finally, is why I only devoted about 800 words of my 65,000 word novel to it.
Exactly, John!
"Maybe I'm crazy, but I've just never thought that sex is THAT important in the scheme of things. And that, finally, is why I only devoted about 800 words of my 65,000 word novel to it."
That last sentence says it all.
Art
Bravo!
Plan2!!
Glad you're back!
So, a 12-year-old read the excerpt from LFA I posted below and didn't mind it. Could it be that LFA is appropriate for some 12-year-olds then? Or is this kid just a freak? (Sorry CC, I don't think that)
Who should decide? The ALA? You?
Or maybe the precious 12-year-olds themselves? Is that so unthinkable?
Thanks for what Plan2?
With every post you make I'm even more sure that you don't want young people to think and chose for themselves.
Are you honestly saying that you want to deny a young person access to a book?
Can you think of someone else who wanted to stop people reading books because he disapproved of their content?
Yes - that's exactly what I'm suggesting.
Oh right – no worries, I’m glad you’re not gone!
Sorry, but I'm just not going to follow your rules "for the sake of argument". I enjoy thinking for myself.
If the physical movement of a book from one place to another in the library was the only core of debate then we'd all have been siting Dewey numbers instead of discussing the broader issues.
You want to try to remove subjectivity, but your own parameters make this impossible. To assume that a book is "inappropriate" still implies that someone has assumed this - looking at it and deciding one way or the other that the book is appropriate or inappropriate. By asking everyone to "assume for the sake of argument" a choice that is not our own about the suitability of a book then you’re asking us not to argue or think and I don’t think that’s a very courteous way of defending your position.
If LFA was made of broken glass, then maybe you’d have support in your desire to have it moved to a different section of the library. But it’s only made of paper and ideas, and that’s where you start getting into sticky territory where I think you have to start asking yourself: do I want these ideas restricted or not? Which ones? Why?
Oh right – no worries, I’m glad you’re not gone!
Sorry, but I'm just not going to follow your rules "for the sake of argument". I enjoy thinking for myself.
If the physical movement of a book from one place to another in the library was the only core of debate then we'd all have been siting Dewey numbers instead of discussing the broader issues.
You want to try to remove subjectivity, but your own parameters make this impossible. To assume that a book is "inappropriate" still implies that someone has assumed this - looking at it and deciding one way or the other that the book is appropriate or inappropriate. By asking everyone to "assume for the sake of argument" a choice that is not our own about the suitability of a book then you’re asking us not to argue or think and I don’t think that’s a very courteous way of defending your position.
If LFA was made of broken glass, then maybe you’d have support in your desire to have it moved to a different section of the library. But it’s only made of paper and ideas, and that’s where you start getting into sticky territory where I think you have to start asking yourself: do I want these ideas restricted or not? Which ones? Why?
Plan2 -
I am confused. You keep citing Pico over and over again. But the Pico case was a victory for those who would KEEP BOOKS IN school libraries. It overruled a school board that had removed books inappropriately.
Readers can check this out here:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm
and here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=853
Please explain.
Jordan
PS - You are still anonymous. Why?
Who defines something as inappropriate?
You are asking how keeping children from a certain kind of material (be it sexually appropriate or inappropriate*) is restricting ideas.
Stopping someone (child or not) from reading something, no matter how awful it is, is still stopping them from access to information.
It's how we teach children to deal with information that is the important part. That's what library is not there for. They are recepticals, not teachers. Teachers are teachers. Parents are teachers. Friends are teachers.
We should not shield children's eyes (even if they are 12 or 13) and tell them to read Star Trek. We should talk with them about porn, Playboy, sex, love, violence, drugs and truth.
"Son, I know they have Playboy in the library, and you'll probably want to go and have a look. It's just pictures of women on paper, not real ones. You won't learn anything useful about women there - go and talk to women instead. Listen. Learn something. If you have any questions, about anything, I'll tell you. I'm not afraid. I want you to know as much as you can, think for yourself and be happy."
* I am till interested in your definition of sexually appropriate material for children, surely there must be a flip-side to the "inappropriate" material you keep mentioning. No need to get too graphic if you don't feel comfortable - how does the "base" system work for you? You know, first for 12-year-olds, second for 14, etc.
Franzy, do you apply the same premise to books against tobacco, alcohol and fire arms? Are these appropriate subjects for minor children? How many books on the subject does your local Public Library have in their Children and Young Adult (12-17 year-olds) Departments versus sexually explicit books (like "Looking for Alaska")?
"Now – sex sex sex. Yes. Sex sex sex sex. So far we’ve had no less than two 12 year olds declare an interest in books about sex. Not sex itself, but books about it. They’re curious (as we all are) and they’re not growing away from a sexual world, they’re growing towards it, whether they like it or not. Sex is indeed just sex, people touching, feeling, emoting etc. It can be a fine thing."
Hmmmmmmmm... So, my Aussie friend, since "no less than two 12 year-olds declare an interest in books about sex," why are Public Libraries FULL of "books about it" in their Children and YA departments?! I'm glad Dr. Martin Luther King didn't have your same approach --inevitability-- to racism! And, yes, sex is "just sex, people touching, feeling, emoting etc.," and it can end up in gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease, herpes and AIDS. Yup, you're right: it can be a fine thing!
G'day Emilia!
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your first post. Are you asking whether there should be books about alcohol, tobacco and firearms?
Of course there should! Books are good! They help people think and teach and learn!
Right?
And sex sex sex leading to disease and death as well as good feelings and love? It sure can. You also forgot that sex can also lead to abuse, psychological damage, social stigmatisation, guilt, nightmares, violence etc.
Do you think people could learn to avoid those things at all? How? Do you think books could help? Maybe even just to raise questions?
And you ask why public library YA sections are full of "books about it" and I would say that's because young adults are curious about "it". I would also deny that every YA book is purely concerned with sex and nothing else.
Plan2,
Thanks for complimenting my moral and interpersonal attributes. I try.
I'm still not buying your argument, though. I still feel you're misusing Pico.
I absolutely read and understood the "pervasively vulgar" part. However, I still feel it is YOU who are misrepresenting the whole gist of the case, because "pervasively vulgar" was clearly an EXCEPTION to the general precedent the case was setting.
And among the books we have discussed at this site, there is NOTHING that would pass a "pervasively vulgar" test. None of the books that get routinely challenged in our nation's schools would, either.
Harry Potter? Nope. LFA? Nuh-uh. To Kill a Mockingbird? Please.
I must admit, though, that I've never taken or administered a pervasively vulgar test.
:)
How about we let young readers decide for themselves?
Let's say, for argument's sake, that LFA did get moved to the "adult section" (is that like in the video store?). Would you support a poster in the YA/teen section explaining where the Book of the Year winner LFA was (fiction A-L) and why it had been moved? (Bd of Educ v. Pico decision in the Supreme decreed this book as 'pervasively vulgar' and has asked that it be moved away from the Star Trek novels).
That's not a bad compromise, is it? The book's been moved, Plan2's happy, but young readers can still find it, everyone else is happy (except for probably Emilia and Milla, both of whom may be the same person).
Ah.
So can I assume that we're beyond "assuming for argument's sake that the book is inappropriate"? You now seem to have moved beyond the theoretical to the actual, assuming for argument’s sake no longer. It’s now just bad, for real.
I think I'll be working on the assumption that you don't want young people to choose and think for themselves.
I put it to you that you do not believe that people as young as 12 are capable of choosing their own reading material and making decisions about it.
If you had your way and LFA was spirited away from the teen section with no indication as to what had happened to the book, or its existence in the first place, then you would be no worse than you claim the ALA to be, pushing your views on young readers.
You would have books removed rather than put on shelves. You don’t want young people to think about or know about sex. I put it you that you equate a young person thinking about sex as triggered by a book or a film to them being sexualised (but sexualised to whom?).
Young people are not sexual beings, but they can think about it.
I put it to you that you want to stop young people thinking about sex.
In fact, I do not agree with you, Plan2Succeed. In fact, I could not disagree MORE with your comments like this:
But the ALA's definition of censorship, and its whole propaganda effort to claim censorship where none exists, just so it can continue its efforts to push pornography on children, is where the problem lies.
A "propaganda" effort? No censorship? Are you implying that because the government is not actually banning the printing of books, then there is no censorship? If so, we're getting caught up in semantics. There is a widespread, active movement in the U.S., in the government and out, to suppress and exclude certain ideas from literature, and to restrict access to these books. I think that's censorship, and I think it's disturbing. You scoff at efforts to ban classic works, and books with homosexual themes, but that is exactly what's going on all across the country.
For the record, I meant that LFA is "extreme" in terms of its placement in mainstream YA lit. But I DO think it fits perfectly fine in mainstream contemporary YA lit, for an older teen readers, as in my experience, it's ALWAYS been portrayed. "Pornography?" I find that suggestion truly outrageous.
This whole debate now seems rather silly to me, because it seems to be about the fact that you don't like LFA--that you think it's "pornography," not literature. Well, okay. But if this discussion has proved nothing else, it's proven that lots of other people disagree with you, including many parents on this list.
So we've got a book where the vast majority of people with knowlegde about teen books--booksellers, critics, authors, readers, Amazon reviewers, librarians--who seem to think has much literary merit. And we've got you, who thinks it's "pornography." So where do we go from here? Apparently, we can't agree to disagree, because think that access to the book should be restricted, and that no library or school should buy the book in the first place (you're argument has been amended so much, I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore, but you've implied that you want some sort of "warning label" on the book, but that can't be the case, since even a warning label wouldn't make pornography acceptable to teenagers, right?).
Anyway, I'm not sure where we go from here, except to call it a day.
Amen, Brother Brent!
Amen.
You said:
But the ALA's definition of censorship, and its whole propaganda effort to claim censorship where none exists, just so it can continue its efforts to push pornography on children, is where the problem lies.
I don't know how else to interpret this except that you think that the work that the ALA is doing, which is FREQUENTLY focused on challenged works with gay themes, is "propaganda" and that "censorship" doesn't exist.
I'm saying that censorship DOES exist, that the ALA is pretty much telling it exactly like it is--and that their words are not "propaganda" at all.
I also take great offense to saying that libraries and the ALA are pushing "pornography" on "children." I think it's you who needs to apologize for using such outrageous, misleading terminology. Frankly, I think it's slander/libel.
Incidentally, you keep changing your argument, and the terms of the debate. You now say that LFA is a "good" book, but you've also said, repeatedly, that it's "pornography."
Honestly, we have to agree to disagree. This is getting ridiculous. No minds are being changed here.
Brent - look I've had a very interesting time testing Plan2's arguments and not really receiving any straight answers and I'm probably guilty of facilitating, if not forcing Plan2's jumping around from issue to issue: the equating of moral issues to legal ones, book placement to murder, internet policy to rape.
Plan2 doesn't seem to understand that censorship isn't a moral issue, it's a legal one. Plan2 will argue that keeping nine-year-olds from reading Playboy isn't censorship, it's just common sense. And Plan2 would be right. Censorship is removing the opportunity to take in information and ideas: stopping people (young, old, whoever) from having access to information and therefore, access to thought. And that isn't just a slippery slope, that's switching off a light. Plan2 wants a decision made about this "inappropriate" material and its access rights, but there is never ever a discussion about who should hold this power over other people's thoughts - the argument never dips deeper than "it's just wrong". There's never a "why" question answered and I would suggest that this because for all Plan2's referencing and issue jumping he/she does not want to have to start questioning or explaining his/her own values or why they should take precedence over someone else's.
Because censorship is pretty much like precedent, you censor one book for one person, what's to stop you censoring another book for another person, and another and another until you control everything and the way people think?
To quote the greats: "you don't compromise. You don't give in. You don't split the baby. If it is wrong, and compromise does not make it right."
Thanks, Franzy.
I guess I am annoyed by his/her frequent disparagement of the ALA. The fact is, bills are frequently introduced all across this country that would, in fact, ban and censor whole ideas from schools and libraries: any positive mention of gay people or themes is a common one. Absolutely, the reason why more of these bills do not pass is solely because of the tireless, thankless work of the ALA, as they educate legislators and citizens on the real ramifications of their actions.
Like the ACLU, I may not agree with every single stand the ALA has taken over the years, or will take in the years to come, but that's not the point. The point is, I whole-heartedly and enthusiastically agree with the principles they are fighting for. They're fighting a much larger fight than any one book, or even any one issue, and I believe it's a fight that there is absolutely no guarantee that they're going to win (especially these days). Anyone who cares about free expression and, frankly, literature, should be joining their voice to theirs.
And now I really am out of here. I don't have time to come back again.
Plan2 - since the thread is probably coming to a close but for me and thee, I've just got one question:
Should young people choose and decide for themselves what they read?
Plan2 wrote: “Judith Krug, top dog at the ALA, says parents who care get their children Playboy. I say it's the exact opposite. But Judith Krug is the top dog at the ALA -- so she must know better, right?”
Frankly, Plan2succeed it is hard to trust any of your facts when you throw around misrepresentations like this. I assume you’re referring to the article from Focus on the Family Magazine (written by a let’s say less-than-impartial writer) that quotes Krug as saying, “Parent’s who express such grave concern over their child’s reading of materials ...say to me that they don’t have very much confidence in themselves as parents. Restricting the kinds of materials that are available in libraries is not going to solve those parents’ problems. Letting children read materials in the library is probably one of the most benign ways to permit young people to explore different ideas. I’ve never known a book or magazine to make any girl pregnant. It’s not going to hurt the kids to read.”
You magically twist this into “Krug recommends Playboy to kids.” That’s irresponsible and weakens your argument. It could also be twisted into “Krug recommends Looking For Alaska because young adults might learn that they aren’t alone in wondering what sex (or life) is about.” Or Krug says “Get your kids to read The Geography Club because kids might learn that being gay is just another part of the whole wonderful human experience.”
In the end parents should decide what kids read, but they shouldn’t decide what should be in the library. It’s not a daycare. It’s where we keep our information (all of our information).
“Oh, and LFA is being made into a movie.”
It’ll make a great movie. It’s silly to pretend that the ALA will be upset that that the movie has ratings. The ALA is concerned about open access “in libraries” not in movie theaters. So your comparison doesn’t work.
Finally, like Jordan, I’m curious why you hide behind the identity of your organization. To me it’s a false way of trying to lend more weight to your argument. By posting as plan2succeed you are saying that you are not just an individual, you present yourself as an organization, therefore inferring that what you say must carry more weight. Of course, we all know on the internet all it takes to make an organization is an e-mail account and a website. You don’t even need any other members.
Art
Dear Plan2,
I am sorry that you are so offended. I'm believe I'm right about the Playboy thing, though. It appears you might have been misled by the magazine or safelibraries.org. The quote is: Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy "don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore." This indicates to me that Judith didn't say the "Playboy" part of the sentence. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that there is a "legal link" on the site related to that quote. So I was wrong. You didn't twist her quote. They did. You just repeated it. If Krug really did say that whole line I'd appreciate seeing it somewhere.
Thank you for explaining why you remain anonymous.
Art
Plan2!
Bet you thought I'd gone eh?
Quick question: you represent an organisation, yet you demand an apology. To whom? The website? You want a person to say sorry to a website that exists to purely to propagate views that the person disagrees with?
You what?
Another quickie: 'sexually inappropriate' - still waiting for a definition there.
Plan2 -
I have one major point that I think needs to be made. You wrote of the authors here that, "Second, your name is out in the open because you are a public figure and an author and your name is part of your product." That is precisely _why_ shedding our anonymity is a brave act and a hard decision -- because, in tying our public identities to a controversial argument, we are risking injury to our sales figures.
I worry about this: my book sales feed and clothe my children. Also, I write very mild, even G-rated "young" YA books, so I don't benefit personally from the defense of upper YA; in my case (and that of many other writers here), the risk is not balanced by any potential gain.
Dear Plan2,
you said: "But it is totally unfair to make such misrepresentations then not have them immediately addressed."
I would like to know whether you think Judith Krug really made that comment about Playboy. As I pointed out in my previous point it appears to be a misrepresentation of her words. It appears you made a mistake repeating false information. Should you not apologize for that?
Art
Dear Plan2,
Whether Krug made other“outrageous” statements has nothing to do with the Playboy quote. The fact that you use what appears to be a doctored quote to bolster your arguments calls all your other arguments into question.
Thank you for saying “The question is, do you want to use your own brain or do you want the ALA to think for you?” I laughed until I nearly ruptured my spleen. I didn’t realize the ALA was thinking for me. Now when I forget to take the garbage out I can say to my wife, “The ALA forgot to tell me to take the garbage out.” All this time I thought I was using my own brain. How silly of me. You’ve set me straight.
Oh, and thanks too for suggesting that I’m taking the ALA’s line because I fear becoming “persona non grata.” But I’m a Canadian and the ALA actually has little influence on my career. The majority of my sales are up here in Canada. All your talk about the ALA has led me to read a lot more about the organization. In my view they’re doing a lot for the betterment of your country and all library patrons.
Anyway, that reminds me--what I do for a living is write books. I should get back to that. I don’t intend to visit this issue with you again. There’s been enough written on the posts above to let other readers make up their minds.
Art
My dear adults
(Art, Francy, Jordan, Brent, I hope you're still there)
I turned 13 yesterday!!!! (No need to sing happy birthday) So I'm no longer the 12yo. reading all this adultish stuff.
I kept reading this blog trying to get answers. But honestly, I got none.
I do have a question to Plan2succeed and all the authors or adults.
Plan2: Has your organization or anyone elses done some sort of chart that lists what is sexually appropriate and what's not for a certain age? You know, like the food pyramid and things like that.
I wonder what that chart would look like. Maybe something like:
0-5: some kissing and hugging from members of the same family
5-10: kissing in the lips within man-woman of different families.
10-12: some deeper kissing, but risking brain injury
13-15: some more advance sex, except blow jobs in LFA
I wonder who would have a saying in that chart. Could us teens vote?
I wonder what's appropriate for me to read now that I'm a little older.
Plan2: I also want to tell you that I love the way you document your responses. So I did my homework for you and I have a link that you could check:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22235
It talks about how us teens perceive all that sex that seems to be so harmful for us.
Now you can sing happy birthday ;-)
C.C. , the 13 yo kid who still loves to read
PS: I got a 98 in health! How I wish Plan2 could have signed my test!
Planny!
I've got a good aussie nick name for you there.
I'm back. I'll never go away! I never get tired of seeing you switch from broad issues to specifics and then back again to avoid the relentless tide of differing opinion that continues to roll down the page!
I've also got books to write, so I'll just shoot with a quick question and check back later. This isn't a loaded one, I'm actually curious as to how this happens:
How do American libraries 'push' material onto children? In Australia we only have bookshelves.
CC!
Happy birfday to u!
Nice one, mate. Puts us adults in our place - yet again. Why is no one just listening to the 12-now-13-year-olds of the world and running from there?
Why all this constant running in circles around 'the intentions of the ALA' and law vs morals. What gives us the right??
ps. That link seems to have gone off the side of the page. I'll repost:
link
(first try with html linking - sorry for errors!)
Not really trying to be funny - but it doesn't seem that awarding a book a prize is pushing of coercing anyone to read it. What's the next step after that? Does it get automatically get placed on curricula for 12 and 13-year-olds at schools?
And another thing that I realise I'm not informed about: what do you mean by 'sexualise'? (Oz spelling! Hooray)
You seem to be applying it to just telling children about sex. I had sex ed when I was in year 6 (age 11) and we learnt about puberty and sex and pregnancy and childbirth (watching a baby being born on video!) and everything grouped in together. Is that what you mean by 'sexualise'? I counted that as a very important part of my education and it meant that in subsequent sex ed classes that dealt more with sex and peer pressure and contraception, I felt more comfortable than my peers who hadn't gone through any such thing. And way more comfortable than my Catholic-educated fiancée who was simply told, in biology class no less, that "condoms don't work"!
I think of the 'sexualising' of children as being the viewing of them by adults as sexually mature and sexually equal beings, ready for sex and the emotional baggage and physicality that comes with it. I think adults who think that children and teenagers in terms of sexuality are stepping way over the line of good taste and responsibility. Like I’ve said often: it should be up to young people themselves to decide what’s good for them to think and read about.
If SmartFilter can't tell porn apart
From a site that posts links to some art
(As BoingBoing likes to do),
And will block it for you,
Then their filter is not very smart.
(Darn it - I cut off the rest of my post. So much for a glorious sign off...)
Totally.
I love asking questions that never get a straight answer!
That slavery analogy was way shaky btw: One slave getting beaten = terrible. Many slaves also = terrible.
Therefore ... put YA books with sexual content in the adult section and hope that kids never find them?
Run a website dedicated to taking down an organisation you disagree with through the courts, rather than getting active and leading your own children by example or just butting out and letting other people's children live their own lives with access to their own information?
Just because Krug said that parents should give their kids Playboy, doesn't mean you have to! Freedom of choice man!
And when you finally win, and the ALA's board gets fired and a new conservative, child-friendly bunch of individuals springs up in its place and those people only choose and recommend books with "appropriate" content and who steer clear of sexuality and issues surrounding sexuality (because that’s a parent’s realm after all), do you think you will have prevented children from being exposed to sex? What’s the point, man?
I take an interest in censorship and freedom of speech and thought for young people because that’s my area of writing and research, but you here have taken up thousands of words trying desperately to present your opinions as facts. No one’s opinion is a fact. That’s why music and literature and art are so popular. Everyone likes something, but nothing takes precedence because there’s no accounting for taste.
Why on earth did you keep returning to a forum that was so obviously convinced your opinions were wrong trying to sway everyone else to your point of view? You say I’m defending the indefensible (I’m not even sure which ‘indefensible’ you’re referring to), but you sir, are using your own right to freedom of speech and thought to restrict the rights of other.
Robert Cormier’s Fade was a favourite book of mine when I was eleven. I can still remember his brilliant and beautiful writing, it inspired me to read further and pursue a career in writing. You would have stopped me from reading that book. Hands off!
Dude!
I knew you'd be back!
I've hit on the problem: the grey areas. No one is saying that 17 year olds should be shielded from books with kissing in them and on the other end, no one is advocating that 5 year olds be subjected to the kind of 'elbow' material you described and seem conversant with.
The grey area is the one occupied by 'young adult' literature and the one we've all been arguing about. Once you start restricting parts of it that offend sections of society, you've got to start restricting other sections and that's a road that ends in wide-ranging censorship and no one wants to go down there either.
But (and I'm sure you'll find something supportive here) to take the road the other way, the way you describe would be to have porno videos given to children and books about serial killers studied in primary school (ages 5 - 12 here). That isn't workable either, I think you'll agree.
So we're left with this grey area. (Grey being a fairly unsuitable colour choice for such a hotly debated topic). Tweenagers, teenagers and young adults are categories that define such a broad range of people and developments that it is impossible to suitably police them all to make sure they grow healthy. I think the ALA is trying as hard as it can to cater to everybody and make sure no one misses out. They merely hold the information, it's up to us - you and me - to decide how we consume it and how we want our loved ones to consume it.
I guess I'm just saying: be vigilant.
It's not black and white. You're kidding yourself if you think for a moment that I'm advocating the things you say I am. I'm sure if you went through a list of materials from 'gross' to 'acceptable' to show a twelve year old you would find my threshhold. Then you would have to find me another twelve year old and go through it all again because subject number two would have different interests.
And after all that, those two 12 year olds would do something different anyway...
Yeah - it's still adults telling young people what to think and read. I'm not really buying the whole 'slippery slope' argument either. I'm still not convinced that children and young people aren't a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Maybe you should be asking why these books are being read by young people in the first place?
And here's a little bit of fun for you too:
http://davidlubar.com/yakit.html
I agree with your statements, Mr. Hartinger.
I agree that this book is not appropriate for all teenagers. You can't judge a person's maturity based solely on their age.
As John Green, the author of Looking for Alaska says, the sex scene is this book is meant to awkward, and unfun. He wants this to contrast with a scene nearer to the middle of the book, when there is a scene that is very emotionally intimate, instead of physically.
You can watch a video with John Green talking about LFA and the banning of his book in some schools here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMPtYvZ8tM
Wow.
Okay, so it doesn't say when the last comment was posted, but I'm just going to assume that few people read this anymore.
Still; the whole discussion really interested me, possibly because I'm exactly in the age range of the intended audience of LfA. Also because I just finished reading it.
I'm not really sure what to say, except that believe me, there is not that much difference between a 12 year old and a 14 year old, and also that teenagers are much smarter and much more intuitive than you think. Is there a particular boundary? When a person is 12 years and 360 days, does that mean they still "can't" read it without being horribly scarred for life?
I agree with someone waaay earlier, kids are learning about sex at younger and younger ages. But that's how it works now, and that's really schools doing it, not anyone else. By 12, in Britain at least, students enter their second year of secondary school, by which point very very few of them are naive enough to believe that all the world is good and innocent - at least in non-Catholic, state schools. I know, it shouldn't have worked out that way, but it did. Most people I know, people my age, wouldn't bat an eyelid at the sexual content in Looking for Alaska. After all, we don't read it for the sex scenes; we read it because we like books. The book is not structured around the sex, it's just a part of the book. Just like the protagonist going to boarding school is a part of the book. No-one cares; no-one is going to grow up to be a necrophiliac just because they read a book which is in the Teen section, which means that if they were there, they should be able to see the sign.
As Mr Green said, the entire purpose of the scene is because it is essentially emotionally empty, while the scene directly following it is full of emotion with practically zero physical contact. There's a reason for it; it's not just sex for the sake of sex.
Also, this line made me laugh:
"deviant adult sexuality that they might not have otherwise entered at any age, like sex with animals or sex during asphyxiation, etc., with the negligence, knowledge, or purpose of doing exactly that to the children."
I mean, I get your point, but no-one's claiming that Looking for Alaska, or any of the ALA-recommended books contain either sex with animals or sex doing asphyxiation, and I'm fairly sure librarians don't plan to do that to the kids just because they're reading those books.
I know I'm repeating a lot of the points already mentioned. But I just wanted to give another "young adult"'s perspective. For the record, I'm 14 (only just) and my other 14-year-old friend highly recommended this book to me because of its brilliant writing and its view on the world and life. Not because of its sex scenes.
The parts of the book that I will remember, that will stick with me, I'm sure, for years to come (as really good books generally do) will definitely be the scene directly after the sex scene, and the whole last quarter of the book. Because a lot of it nearly made me cry.
Believe me when I say this: teenagers aren't as affected by explicit content as much as you think we will be. On the whole, we don't seek it out actively, but we don't cry every night because so-and-so got laid in some book. Not even some 12-year-olds; really depends on the maturity of the person in question (I know several who would definitely be mature enough to easily handle Looking for Alaska).
Just my view...I hope it was vaguely interesting to at least someone.
I strongly agree with the above comment.
I am a thirteen year old girl.
I read this book over the summer.
Is it really the sex scene that stays with us in the future?
After reading Looking for Alaska, were you thinking more about the blow job, or more about the poetic ending?
Here's another thing. Did Pudge gain any kind of sexual satisfaction from the blow job? No.
Does that tell you anything?
Maybe the message is more "sex isn't necessarily what's going to give you satisfaction."
Maybe, just maybe, it's not pro-sex. Did you think about that?
Have any of you ever read Speak? Speak also has a sex scene, though it is more a rape scene. Laurie Halse Anderson, the author, said something that I think relates to this; "But censoring books that deal with difficult, adolescent issues does not protect anybody. Quite the opposite. It leaves kids in the darkness and makes them vulnerable. Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance. Our children cannot afford to have the truth of the world withheld from them.
There's my two cents.
Good to hear there's someone who shares my views, rittiville, and I completely agree with Anderson's view on the topic.
Teenagers are more mature than most adults give them/us credit for, most of the time. :)
I'm sorry for writing a comment that will possibly be redundant since I skimmed the comments, but I just had to speak up.
I am currently 13 years old, and I'll be 14 in two days. I read this book shortly after I found out about the video blog run by John Green and his brother. I was 12. And you know the part of the book that sticks with me to this day? "Thomas Edison's last words were, 'It's very beautiful over there.' I don't know where 'there' is, but I believe it's somewhere, and I hope it's beautiful."
That line echoed in my head for thirteen months. This book taught me more about acceptance, life, death, and love than any other piece of literature. To Kill A Mockingbird is second to it, and I read that in a Catholic school at the age of 12.
My current English teacher at said school read LFA recently, and she loves it. The one thing she was struck by (and something that has been mentioned in the comments several times) was how the author used the scene in question to show how empty the pleasure in sexual acts are compared to pure unadulterated love.
As for the ALA marketing the book, the problem is, hormones have no timeline. There are ten-year-olds I know who are more than definitely beginning puberty, and pretty soon they'll start to have questions about sex. LFA answers a lot of questions by saying "Sex without actual love is as empty as a roller coaster that just goes an a circle."
True, there is some language that parents probably wouldn't want to encourage, but here's the sad truth, moms and dads: some ten-year-olds use the f-word on a regular basis. Why? They see older kids using it at the bus stop, after school, during recess, whatever, and they think it's cool since they pretty much idolize those who are older than them and younger than 18. It's a cycle, and the only way to end it is to put your kids in solitary confinement. Sorry.
So, while I still believe it should be up to the parents to decide whether or not their particular 12-year-old should read a book like LFA, I believe the ALA has every right to recommend it to 12-and-up. The parents decide things, not the librarians.
"Now let's all assume for the sake of argument that a book about detailed oral sex experiences is inappropriate for 12 year olds."
2 things:
1. There is no way you actually read the book if you would describe the scene where Pudge gets head from Lara as a "detailed oral sex experience."
2. Why are we assuming this? When you're twelve you take sex ed, which goes into much greater sexual detail than LFA ever did, and that doesn't make all the twelve year olds start shagging each other.
"For the record, LFA is about as sexually explicit as teen books ever get, IMHO."
Speaking as someone who was a teenager up until quite recently, that's utterly untrue. I would put Looking For Alaska somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of sexually explicitness for young adult books.
Anyway, I think the whole idea of limiting the availability of certain books to certain age groups is ridiculous. I had heard a more detailed description of fellatio than LFA provided when I was in lower school. But, you know, if you want to abuse your power as a parent and try to mold them into a something you like rather than provide guidance and assistance as they mold themselves, go right ahead.
I would also like to comment that I read Looking For Alaska because it was assigned in my 10th grade english class.
Rittieville, I agree with everything you said. I read this book when I was 14. I could have cared less about that scene. What really struck me was the character's and their relationships.
I would just like to add that I read this book when I was 13 and it has done no damage to me. I don't think adults realise how much we already know at that age. The sexually explicit scenes in that book were nothing I hadn't heard about before or even read about. There were plenty of other books that I read about at the same age which had very similar content but no award. Not having an award didn't stop me from finding it. I also read other books at that age with slightly worse content. I rememeber reading a book about a sexual relationship between a teacher and a student which was in the teen section. When I borrowed it, I didn't know what the content was going to be like however without the award I still found it. Surely that kind of content is worse than what is in LFA! I honestly don't think it is as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. LFA is not that bad really. Sure there is some sexual scenes but really?
18 year old who still remembers what it is like to be a kid.
Since I haven't really read everything here, sorry if I'm a bit behind.
What my opinion on this is (And I completely believe that comment moderation will filter my comment out) that some 12 year old kids, like myself (I try to think) are mature enough to handle some of the truths of life. I can't speak for anyone else my age, but one part of growing up, for me at least, is discovering things before anyone tells you about them. I discovered all the gory details about every subject imaginable online. Sex included. It's not like LFA would be a "violent introduction into adult life" or anything. We've seen movies. We've read other books. It's sort of unfair to pin this one on LFA. I mean, really. I've read that book, maybe 5 times. I've never been affected by that section. I hadn't even remembered it until it was mentioned. And, furthermore, as John Green HIMSELF (Which is so amazing) so eloquently put it, 'That's why [he] devoted only 800 words to it'. And would you look at that. A 12-year-old was mature enough to recognize a good quote when she sees one, whereas no sexually themed quotes immediately come to my poor traumatized undeveloped mind. Something worth remembering, hm?
-Yet another 12-year-old. But this time she correctly capitalizes her sentences. And spells everything correctly.
Post a Comment
<< Home