As a music and film librarian, kids' books are not my area of expertise. Lately, however, controversy has gripped the library world over a kids' book, and like the wreck of a clown car, it's been impossible to look away.
This particular controversy is about the use of a word. A word which, in the opinion of some, utterly negates any value of the story. Although the book, The Higher Power of Lucky, impressed the Newbery Award Committee enough to honor it, this word is making it impossible for some librarians to read the book aloud, to recommend it to children, even to carry it in their collections.
The word is "scrotum."
The first I heard of this was a column in Publisher's Weekly, discussing the fact that certain library Listservs were aflame with this nightmare. I had to re-read the article several times to confirm that the controversy is, in fact, about the actual word "scrotum", and not the use of some other euphemism for the word scrotum more often found on made-for-cable series about cowboys or gangsters. Alas, the controversy really is about the word "scrotum."
"Because of that one word," said a school librarian, "I would not be able to read that book aloud." Some complained that the use of the word was totally unnecessary. Some implied that there were many other choices the author could have used instead.
I like contemplating this plethora of words the author could have used instead of scrotum, which is the anatomically accurate name for a specific body part. None come to mind that are not on that aforementioned list of premium cable euphemisms guaranteed to get your average 10-year-old mouth washed out with soap.
Armchair editing like this drives me bonkers. "The author ought to have used this word instead of that word." "The author used a word that was 'unnecessary,'" as if the selection of words, specific words in a specific order, is not the very definition of what it means to be an author. It's like saying it was unnecessary for Picasso to use so much blue paint. It's ridiculous to argue that an author used a word, any word, "unnecessarily." They used the words that they used.








Article comments
1 - GL Hauptfleisch
Enjoyable piece, highly amusing. You know, for a article about, um, well...you know...
2 - Katie McNeill
This is a great article! I had no idea any of this was going on and it just makes me want to read the book that much more.
3 - ffakerson
Ugh! Next thing you know you'll be telling me that it's okay to use words like "ovary", "navel" or "duodenum" in children's stories.
4 - jaz
rectum?...damn nearkilled 'em"
thanks for the fun read...
/golfclap
the Tao ofD'oh.
(don't play the link in the library!)
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I cannot believe that a DOG's scrotum is the center of a controversy like this! Watching dogs is the way lots of kids learn about sex.
Man!!!
6 - Brad Blake
If the dog was bit in the scrotum by a rattler, what are you going to say? He was bit in his "dingleberries", his "ballsack", his "genetailia", his "thing that hangs off his other thingy", his "thing the doctor pushes when he or she says 'cough'", or what?
Undoubtedly the same uptight, right-wing, book burning types who elected U Know Who.
7 - Natalie Bennett
This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!
And definitely not bollocks. (Sorry, couldn't resist...)
8 - MAOZ
"Book Drives Librarians Nuts!"
Pun intended?