I recently came across a blog post warning parents against the dangers of current literature and the liberal, homosexual agenda of the ALA, heralding examples of [what the author considers] unhealthy books. Find it here.
I would like to briefly mention that the graphic novel held up as an example of unhealthy literature promoted by the American Library Association was a Caldecott Honor book, not the winner. I've read the winner for 2015; it was beautiful. Also, although the Caldecott medal is designated as an award for children 14 and under, most libraries are designed with an anime/manga/graphic novel section separate from the Children's section, and much closer to, or in conjunction with, the teen section, just for the record.
I have to say that, while I understand and appreciate this lady's concern for her children, I'm overall unimpressed with how she presents her argument. Her overuse of quotation marks to undermine the word experts left a bad taste in my mouth, especially since she only highlighted a handful of books she didn't like (one of which didn't even win!), without even acknowledging the good the ALA has chosen in the recent years. The belief that the ALA – and literature in general – has taken a turn for the worse in the past 50 years completely ignores authors such as Kate DiCamillo, Louis Sachar and Lois Lowry, all of whom have won the Newbery Medal for their excellent and beautiful works.
It's really, really, hard to make a hard and fast rule when it comes to many, many, things, but especially literature. Cutting out books written after 1950 may result in the loss of books not considered "wholesome," but is that worth the loss of authors such as Jon Klassen, Barbara Park, Chris Van Allsburg, Jon Scieszka or Daniel Handler (more commonly known as Lemony Snicket)? Not to mention that just because a book is old doesn't mean it's good. This is NOT to discount the classics, which I love, but just a reminder that just because someone wrote a book doesn't mean it's written well, has well-developed characters, an interesting plot or themes worth considering. In addition, many books written more than 50 years ago, which “promoted mainstream American values or at least didn’t undermine them,” oftentimes demonstrate the still-visible Apartheid of Children's Literature – that is, they promote a WASP America that doesn’t quite exist anymore. If literature is supposed to teach us about others, to let us experience things we might not (and probably won’t) have the chance to experience ourselves, to show us how to be a better person by exposing us to others’ stories, shouldn’t some of those people look different from us, think different things than us, act different than us?
The question the author poses, “how do we as parents prepare them to live in the world and be discerning for themselves?” is a worthy and valid question, but I doubt that swearing off the ALA and books from the last half-century is the answer. Rather, if we as parents, educators, trusted babysitters, etc., are doing our job, I would hope that our children – especially by the time they are old enough to read voraciously on their own – will have had enough exposure to the good, the true and the beautiful to be discerning. Given access to much, they will learn to choose some. Given only approved choices, they learn the opposite of discernment; they learn that everything at their fingertips is okay. Come adulthood, they are in for a nasty surprise.
- Tana
