Under normal circumstances, it might have been years, possibly never, before I got around to reading this year's Newbery Award winner, but fortunately controversy made reading it a vital necessity. One does not have to go far into The Higher Power of Lucky to find the word. It's right there, on page one. Our heroine overhears a dramatic story about a man whose dog was bit on the scrotum by a rattlesnake.
If I'd thought the controversy was silly before, reading the context elevated it to positively asinine. We're not even talking about a human scrotum, but a canine one, similar to any one of the millions presently on display in living rooms, yards and parks across the country. I had assumed based on the level of hysteria that the scrotum was perhaps doing something vaguely offensive or scatological, instead of valiantly withstanding the attack of a rattler. Considering the average dog's propensity for doing embarrassing things to their privates, usually in public, this particular scrotum is positively heroic.
If the "controversy" had stopped with the Publisher's Weekly bit, it would have been easily shrugged off. Unfortunately, what with all the concern over troop surges and military hospital failures and where oh God where on Your Green Earth shall Anna Nicole be buried, it was apparently a slow news week, and the scrotum controversy went national. The New York Times and Newsweek both picked up the story, leading to an explosion in scrotal related newspaper stories.
Many of the articles, like the original PW one, failed to mention the fact that the scrotum in question belonged to a dog. The New York Times article did have one woman insisting that this was yet another example of the "Howard Stern" effect on our country, where people just use nasty words for no reason but to upset good decent people. Comments like this always reveal more about the commenter than the commentated (like maybe they haven't read the book), but what bothered me more was the thought that the people who actually wrote the articles had not read the book. How else to explain the inclusion of quotes like "you won't find men's genitalia in quality literature" without any kind of fact-based alternative perspective? Either the reporters hadn't read the book (which isn't that long, people) or else the reporters were more interested in la scandale than the truth, and we know that never happens.








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?