A case against censorship: See You at the Library is not American, Constitutional or Biblical

 Hello my friends of the Omschool. I know, I know, I just wrote a pro-censorship post and now I'm contradicting myself with an anti-censorship one. So the first one was actually not so much in favor of censorship as delaying children reading books books that aren't age-appropriate, aka books that are too mature. Today I'm taking on full-out censorship, banning books and the See You at the Library initiatives.

When Kirk Cameron (yes the child actor) initiated his "See You At the Library" thing last year, his proclaimed intent didn't match his true agenda. His mission is supposedly to return to American, Constitutional and Bible values. It was really a hostile takeover of libraries. They didn't want a meeting room like anyone else using the library would be given. They demanded to read in the library proper where everyone was forced to listen to readings of their fundamentalist books. 

As a person who treasures the sanctity and QUIET of the library, I'd be opposed for this reason alone! Supposedly this was an alternative to "drag queen story hours" (the ignorance baffles). My children have enjoyed many events at the library and never once was there an agenda besides learning to love reading. So as a person and a parent who treasures her civil liberties, I would not want my children being proselytized at story hour. By any one of any persuasion.  But that's not all they did. 

They further wanted a shelf purge of anything that didn't fit with their narrow definition of appropriate literature. AND librarians were to be punished and fired if said books were left on shelves. This is the kind of slippery slope mentality that led to book burning in Nazi Germany, just saying. These advocates don't just want freedom to read what they want, they want you not to be free to read what you want. 

Why am I so vehement about this? Because it violates the American, Constitutional and Bible values they supposedly promote. American values are all about being able to worship as we choose (or don't choose). We are protected against state religions and enforced observances. We believe in separation of church and state.  I'm a Catholic but I don't want mandated prayer, Bible reading etc. That destroys the purpose which should be done is secret and from the heart. And, make no mistake, fundamentalists like these have no use for any religious observance other than their own, despite the fact that it predates theirs by 1,900 years. 

Our constitution promises freedom of speech and the press. The American Library System is the backbone and bastion of that freedom. The Bible is all about diversity, inclusion and equality. Jesus abhorred hatred, shaming, judgementalism, hypocrisy and double standards. He railed against Pharisees and the self-righteous. 

I call this "Make America Stupid Again." 

As a homeschool parent, I knew a fair number of other parents who 

Late Boomer Teen and Kids Books that earlier boomers, Gen Y and Z don't understand

Hello my friends of the Omschool. March is National Reading Month and also Women's History Month. I've been writing a lot about books with flawed but relatable girl heroes from my boomer childhood (late 60s into 70s) These characters are often misunderstood and seem very broken, which is what resonated with me and maybe a lot of girls my age. What I realize, reading reviews from clearly younger people, is that these stories don't translate well with Gen Y and Z and maybe not even Gen X. 

Interestingly enough, they don't make sense to earlier boomers either who were raised on Pollyanna and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. It seems we, the last of  the late, great boomers are the only ones that get these characters. That's because our youth and teen time was very different than any before or after us. 

Let's take for example, the book Me Too by Vera and Bill Cleaver. A 12 y/o girl is abandoned by father and essentially mother, to care for her developmentally disabled (called retarded back then) sister Lorna. She tries to "make Lorna smart" to win back father. This book often gets low reviews, venomous actually, for being unrealistic and because the main character (sorry I've forgotten her name) is so angry with her sister. 

But from the perspective of a kid then and now, if we're honest, it's absolutely believable. Fathers (and mothers) do abandon families. Mine did. And moms (and dads) are often absent. Mine were. Parents did leave their oldest kids to basically raise their siblings. Mine did. And while my situation was quite unusual comparatively speaking (and maybe why I appreciated this book so much), I know others could relate as well. 

And the older sister who gets all the venom, was the most believable of all. She was hurt that her family was shattered, resented her sister for ruining her life, angry with her parents for not taking care of her or Lorna and just mad at life in general for dealing her such a rotten hand. Now you tell me what generation of adolescents hasn't felt these things and for fewer reasons than this character has. 

Reviewers faulted her for blaming her sister, calling her names and hating her, but also for, politically incorrectly, trying to make her normal. Now, to begin with, a kid shouldn't be left to care for their sibling alone, especially not one with special needs. And if they are, they're going to make mistakes and get it wrong because they are KIDS. I find it interesting how we don't fault parents for parentifying their child and then blame the child for failing to be the adults that the adults are unwilling to be.

And trying to normalize her sister, calling her names, punishing her is exactly what normal teens would do. THAT is realistic. Hurtful? Sure. Sometimes mean, yep. Misguided, absolutely. She had none of the parental guidance she should have had. Life is not a Hardy Boys novel. And most girls or people aren't Nancy Drew with her perfect piety and smug saintliness. We bumble and stumble. 

One reviewer scalded  the book for not having a happy ending. (so read the Bobbsey Twins) And that's what I like about the book! My life has never had neat, tidy conclusions either. Another faulted her for using God's name in vain and for having "janky" ideas of Christianity. So sanctimoniousness aside, A lot of us in that time were questioning the hypocrisy of organized religion, being raised to do things that weren't modelled for us. And if the character had wrong ideas, it was because she was showed a janky version. She was being made to carry heavy burdens the "Christians" weren't helping carry. 

I confess I'm surprised at the vituperative attitude toward this book and others like it from Gen X, Y and Z. I expected it from older generations who tended not to understand kids of the 70s. How often did we hear "things were different in my generation!" They certainly were and now we're having to deal with the fallout of all that. So cut us some slack! 

But I didn't expect to read such scathing criticism from younger, self-professed enlightened people. It is shows how differently kids are now raised and that closemindedness is not the purview of older people alone. It never ceases to amaze me how insular people can be. They see things only through the lens of their own experience, social norms and constructs.  They pass judgement on people who have not lived in their reality. They hold past people accountable to now expectations. 

So where was I going with this? It gets back to my earlier post that to understand books from another time and place we have to understand the time and place it was written. We have to  drop preconceived notions and leave off judging what we didn't live and seek to understand cultural, and time period differences. 

There are so many examples of late boomer teen and kids books and plays that older boomers, Gen Y and Z don't understand. Some of these teen angst stories from the 50s were censored and banned: 

West Side Story (Jerome Robbins play)

Lord of the Flies (William Golding)

Rebel Without a Cause (film by Nicholas Ray)

Catcher in the Rye (J. D. Salinger)

The Wild One  (Lazlo Benedek film),

Cross and the Switchblade, Purple Violet Squish (and others by David Wilkerson co-authored with John and Elisabeth Sherril) 

Run, Baby, Run (Nicky Cruz)

From the 60s and 70s, the Bill and Vera Cleaver book Where the Lilies Bloom. M.E.Kerr's Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack, The Outsiders (an all of S.E. Hinton's books), Judy Blume books, The Pigman (and others by Paul Zindel). 

The only play/movie that I know of that dealt with troubled teens prior to this was the Dead End (1934) a fictionalized account of the Bowery Boys (Dead End kids). The characters are often considered unbelievable, 2D, archetypal or anachronistic by younger readers. Older boomers criticized them for showing kids as angry, fallible, "immoral", mouthy and even cruel. All of these books have been challenged and sometimes banned. 

And that's because readers are either looking at them through 21st century or good-ole days glasses. Books about teen gangs, drugs, abusive parents, youth violence, depression, murder, ageism, racism, alcoholism, runaways, suicide all this was for adults. We kids had it with dinner on TV. No one protected us from it but they also never imagined WE were dealing with it too. Dead End kids excepted, virtually no story ). So now, topics like this might seem trite. Because people talk about these things now.  When they were written they were revolutionary. 

How to read vintage books by understanding time and place

Hello my friends of the Omschool, teacher Omi (grama) here with some thoughts on reading vintage children's literature. There are certain mindsets one must have and preconceived notions to do away with when reading books not set in a familiar time or place. Or books about unfamiliar subject matter, especially different cultures, traditions and peoples. 

I have an advantage here because I am vintage and much of what I have read, even as a child, far predates me, timewise and in content. I was born in 1964 and learned to read about 4. I got left alone to read what I wanted. So I often ended up reading books that were too mature for me. I have also read books that take place within different cultural milieu. Scholastic Books was very good at presenting different times and cultures sensitively and accurately. And I was a diehard Scholastic fangirl. 

All this was so good for me because it broadened my mind, deepened my empathy and and prevented me from developing a lot of ethno-centric stereotypes and prejudices. I've always had intense respect and appreciation for people's differing ways of doing things. If anything, I wanted to leave the US and move to those places I read about. 

But back to topic, mindsets we need for reading vintage literature. Maybe mindset is the wrong word because it implies inflexibility and we need flexibility and tolerance to understand things outside our ken. It's crucial to accept that not everyone does things or understands things as I do. My culture, upbringing, background, society and age play a huge role. 

I got to thinking about this reading a blog post about a book called "Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack" (M.E. Kerr). I'm not sure the blogger's age but guessing they weren't reading this book when it was written in 1972 (set in 71). There are many criticisms about its many "wacky" references. 

However the wacky references, such as the cat's name being Ralph Nader, wasn't wacky at all in 1971. Ralph Nader was a household name. It would be like naming a cat Steve Jobs now. It was also deemed strange that main character Tucker's mom wrote for a true confessions magazine. In 1971, the grocery store aisle was papered in such magazines, the National Enquirer being the best known. 

Then there's discussion on quirky ways parents behaved which, though it might sound made-up was actually pretty normal, especially in larger cities like L.A. People did go to shrinks and join trendy and fad religious groups. Many of the biggest named diets like South Beach and Scarsdale came out at that time. Moms did do charity work and called it that. The word Ghetto was in common parlance. 

There's also commentary on odd things different characters say which to someone living in those times sounds completely normal. Not acceptable but certainly common. Racism, misogyny, religious and lifestyle bigotry was on prime-time with Archie Bunker. He openly attacked liberals, Jews and "pinkos" and was applauded for it. Kids got used to hearing their parents say things and use terms that make us cringe today. It made some of us cringe then too.  

And then there is the mention of Dinky Hocker's BMI, 5'4" 165#,  which makes the author very uncomfortable. But this BMI WAS considered very overweight back then. I was put on a 1,000 calorie a day diet at age 8 because I weighed 100 pounds. I never gained more than 25 pounds or so and just hit max weight more quickly. Then when I gained weight in high school, I was called fat at 138 pounds. It may not be right but it is how it was.  People were smaller back then, it's just a fact. 

Why do I bring these points up? Because they highlight how important it is, when reading books in different time periods, to understand that what we do and think now isn't always how it's been. And that authors are writing in the time they live to audiences of the time. Agatha Christie used the N-word in a play because it was acceptable then. 

Even beloved Nancy Drew was a condescending racist bigot with a bad case of white savior complex, in her earlier incarnations. But she was reflecting the time and place she lived in. So to understand a novel, we have to understand what the time was like, as odd as it may seem. We don't have to like or agree. But we have to understand. 

We can note what's wrong but we also have to be careful not to be too judgmental of authors reflecting their own time and experience. Some of them were breaking ground just by mentioning these things. And future generations will look back on us and have a lot to find fault with too (current Trump regime springs to mind). Not all change is progress. Nor was the past a unilaterally better time and place. Some things are better, some worse, some just different. 

A case for censorship: Why kids should read age-appropriate books

Hi friends of the Omschool. Today's topic is loaded and controversial. I'm talking about censorship and why there are reasons for it. Now, if you know me, you know that last thing I am is a book burner. Banning books accomplishes about as much locking up alcohol. It just makes it that much more tempting. I'm not talking about entirely forbidding certain books. I'm saying keep kids from reading books that aren't age-appropriate until they are old enough to understand them. And my reason for saying this is anecdotal. 

I started reading about 3 or 4  was reading chapter books by seven and adult literature by about 9. My parents were very involved in their own lives and didn't take any interest in what I read. So I read books that were waaayy to mature for me. I ended up learning about things I was far too young to understand and only ended up feeling icky and confused. 

For example, books on intimacy. I read and loved "Are you there God, it's me Margaret" because it actually talked about things like getting your period. So I moved on, at age 9-ish, to "Then Again Maybe I Won't" which talked about a boy's version of puberty. And was totally embarrassed. I totally missed the really good parts of the book because I was stuck on the what seemed to me, gross parts. 

Was it wrong for a book geared for 10-14 y/os to talk about male genitalia, wet dreams and self-stimulation? Well, I rest my case for age-appropriate: 13 or 14 maybe, 10, no. My husband said he never read it but would have been horrified even at age 13 or 14. I won't be buying it for my grandsons, either. I'm not a prude but just because I was so off-put reading it too young. Which is sad because the book is a very good read. Maybe it was just the time we lived in, maybe not. 

Anyway, then, I bought "Forever" also Judy Blume at 11 and was NOT ready for that AT ALL. It was clearly YA, written about a 17 y/o and was full on teen sex. It made me sick but also luridly fascinated. The problem is not whether teens should read it but that tweens certainly should not.  It sent me down the Harlequin romance rabbit hole and by 13, I was reading semi-porn grocery store novels with my stepmom. I still recall how uncomfortable they  made me, but hey, when an adult lets you, why not? 

Well, why not is because it imprints indelible images on your young mind that leave you feeling dirty and ashamed. But no one tells you this and you don't dare to tell anyone for fear of being told you're disgusting. And if you have been molested, it just makes things worse. You believe it's your fault for reading such things in the first place. 

So I don't believe that kids books should sanitize or condescend, there are better times for children, teens and YA to be introduced to various topics. It wasn't just books on sex that were too mature for me. I read the "The Pigman" (Paul Zindel) around 10. I liked it but was also disturbed by it. Same with "Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack." They were good but I just wasn't ready for them.  There's arguably no age to read "Helter Skelter" certainly not 13.  

Even books like "Freaky Friday" with which there was nothing "iffy" about and which I absolutely adored posed problems when read too young. I missed a lot, it being stream of consciousness writing. And then there were books like "Harriet the Spy" which I read at a younger age but still in range. I missed a lot in that because the setting was unfamiliar. Also, these elementary age kids were featured doing things that were more suited to middle school. 

And don't get me started on all the YA psych books I consumed like candy at around 12.  "Lisa Bright and Dark" (John Neufield) and "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" (Joanne Greenberg) gave me a way too young look into mental hospitals, shrinks, manic-depressive disorder, anorexia, depression, schizophrenia, teen suicide, substance abuse, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, homosexuality, and other terrifying but fascinating issues. 

Then there were the "teen journal" books I became obsessed with at about 13, such as "Go Ask Alice" "Jay's Journal" and "Annie's Baby." They too dealt with fascinating but frightening things, including Satanism and occult. I just learned, looking them up, that it was all a big con and author Beatrice Sparks was a fake. I really believed she was a psychiatrist and that these were real stories from kids' journals. I majored in psychology because of books like these and even recommended them in past articles. There was a lot of money to be made on teen suffering back then. 

In closing, I don't say that these issues should be hushed up. I wish there had been more books on things I was dealing with, like parentification and enmeshment. But then, I probably wouldn't have made the connection anyway because literature was an escape for me. I just urge parents to know what your child is reading and be prepared to walk with them through it. 

Our son wanted to take on Stephen King at around 12. I was reluctant but didn't want to make it forbidden fruit. So I powered through a few with him (and found I'm still to young for some of this content!) And we talked about it. And he regrets reading some of it. But maybe that's what maturing is all about, making choices as best you can and living with the consequences of those choices. 

Thanks--mar

 

Funny kids bedtime books to tame a child's fear of monsters

Hello my friends of the Omschool. Did you know, teacher Omi wasn't always an adult? I was a little kid who was often scared of the dark and of the monsters which I was sure inhabited it. But I learned, from my emotional support books how to conquer some of those fears. Books provide what we call bibliotherapy. By reading certain books and stories we find help for mental health issues, such as fear. Kids books offer bibliotherapy by showing children in similar situations safely resolving struggles. And when they use humor, all the better. If your child fears monsters, likely its worse at night. Here are funny kids bedtime books on taming fear of monsters. 

Harry and the Terrible Whatzit (Dick Gackenbach) We kids believe that the basement is a place where awful things live. My grandma used to tell me to fetch a can of peaches for her while she counted. As if THAT was going to help! I'd run so fast I tripped up the stairs. So I really feel for Harry, when he worries that his mother has been taken or worse by a terrible whatzit in the basement. Our brave hero goes looking for her and finds that you can't judge a monster by its two heads. Absolutely hilarious denouement! 

There's a Nightmare in my Closet (Mercer Mayer) Who hasn't been afraid of the thing in the closet and been told "there's nothing there"? My grandfather humored me and closed the door but even then, I knew as did the kid in this book that I was right, there's something inside! But good news for us when IT turns out to be more afraid of us than we are of him.  I absolutely love the annoyed look on the kid hero's face as he comforts the crybaby creep! Here are some free printable lesson plans on Nightmare in the Closet. 

There's Something in the Attic (Mercer Mayer) Along with the dreaded basement, the attic is another scary place where frights of all kinds lurk. In another case of  mistaken monster identity, it appears there IS something in the attic as we've suspected but he identifies as the fearful rather than the feared. And it takes a brave cowgirl to calm him. 

There's a Monster Under my Bed (James Howe) Monsters have a lot of hiding places and under a kid's bed is their favorite. My preferred monster-prevention method was to cram so much under the bed that a monster wouldn't fit. But Simon can't so he must face the under-bed-dwellers, man to monster. You'll love the outcome. 

Little Monster series. Mercer Mayer really knows his monsters and there could not possibly be a cuter monster than Little Monster unless it's his (sometimes annoying) little sister. Kids can address monster fears by seeing that he's just one of the gang. And Little Monster has to do some bully-busting of his own with big Yally who also turns out to be not as brave as he presents. 

Where the Wild Things Are (Maurice Sendak) What is is with monsters not living up to their reputations? In this classic story, Max not only tames but rules the whiny baby wild things! Because really kids are the most wonderfully wild things of all. 

Go Away, Big Green Monster! (Ed Emberley) The monster in this interactive book is real and really scary UNTIL a child takes him down to size. My youngest daughter loved dismantling Big Green Monster and telling him not to come back unless SHE said so. 

Read these books to your kids before bed or in the classroom at school. Allow for lots of discussion. And see my other articles for more bibliotherapy on bullies, conflict resolution and more.