"It will fuel the fire...." No it won't. Articles like this have been around for a while and will continue to be around. For example: <br><br> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/books/review/22MILLERL.html <br><br> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/books/review/12wolf.html <br><br> http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-not-censorship-its-parenting-best.html <br><br> Remember, as Dan Gerstein said, also in the Wall Street Journal, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." <br><br> "Gurdon ... took aim at the American Library Association's (ALA) Office of Intellectual Freedom for its 'delight in releasing a list of the most frequently challenged books.'" And rightly so. I am now writing a blog post that will expose that ALA list as a fake used to promote the ALA's political agenda. In short, one of the "banned" authors admitted the ALA told her her book was not challenged so much as others but it was put on the list because of the issues involved.

I couldn't agree more. My response to @wsj groundless and narrow-minded article http://bookwrm2006.blogspot.com/2011/06/good-bad-ugly-ya- literature-rocks.html

The fact that the author used such terms as "delight in releasing" shows a bias in writing, which is poor professionalism and does exactly what Judy Bloom says it does. As for your last statement, citation please? It's vague at best, and honestly, vague statements are often twisted to suit one person's agenda. Those that cry censorship often do it for a reason. It usually comes from someone else wanting to limit the right to read for others. Someone else is making a moral and ethical judgment on what others should read, which is censorship. If you don't want your kid to read it, that's fine. But my child is free to read whatever they like in the library. The minute you say my child can't read something because you are morally offended or it's "unsuitable for her age group" is censorship.

Oh look, it's safelibraries.org. Everyone go look at their site, particularly the part about how the ALA is a "porn pusher": http://safelibraries.org/pushers.htm

I think the main point that the people defending YA books are making is not that parents should not be parenting their children. It's that you cannot lump books together and call them bad because you don't agree with content. As a librarian, I have a strong urge to protect each individual's freedom to read and the freedom of availability of books that people want. I personally love Young Adult literature and wish that there would have been books like this when I was young. Instead I jumped from Christopher Pike to Stephen King and V.C. Andrews (both of whom I still love). There weren't a lot of stories about and for people my age, with characters I could relate to or find out about lives and worlds I didn't know much about. I think it's important that books of all kinds and of all topics are available, for kids to escape into or to find someone they finally feel like they have something in common with, to see themselves in someone else. And yes, I feel that it's incredibly important for parents to be parents, to decide what they feel is right for their own children, to discuss difficult topics with their own children. I think the parent should be the most important person in a child's life. But every child is on a different level and it's always changing. What is right for one child may not be right for another. What children's book authors do is provide these stories and these characters for anyone and everyone to share. What ALA does is protect your right to make those decisions for yourself and your own child. Librarians celebrate banned books because we love books and we love that we have the right to read what we want and the right to make our own decisions. We celebrate the right of each person, each family to make those decisions for themselves. I believe in protecting those rights and I believe in being an active participant in your child's life. When a person lumps books together and bans them or decides that these books are not fit for people to have access to, they take away the rights of the individual. When a person makes a judgment call on a book or many books based on a snippet or summary of the book(s) they are not only missing out on the point of the story, but they are also misrepresenting the book, as they have not actually read it. To judge the content of a book that you haven't read in it's entirety, is to misjudge a book and that is incredibly harmful. I fully support the writer of the WSJ article's right to choose a book for her own child but there are many things to consider in this decision. I do not support the spreading of untruths, misjudgments, and opinion taken as fact.

@finette Thanks. The following is also relevant to the issue you raise: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/05/will-manley-outs-library-profession-as.html That said, that is not the issue being discussed here, namely, criticism of the WSJ article.

Apparently the "writer" of the WSJ article has never read anything by the Brothers Grimm, or Hans Christian Andersen - or perhaps that individual should take a class on the genesis and purpose of fairy tales or folktales - which are at their heart, cautionary tales told symbolically to advise the young on what is out there and that it isn't all fluffy bunnies and unicorns. The Robber Bridegroom? A Little Matchgirl? The non-Disney original The Little Mermaid? I don't think I would have lasted past Junior High if it wasn't for Judy Blume. Parents need to jog their memories a little - we read YA fiction to fill in the blanks on the subjects our friends and teachers are too uncomfortable to talk about. And it works. Lessons come in various ways, and getting a kid excited about reading, while also letting some information in the door in a safe way is a tried and true, centuries old, way to do it.

Worth mentioning the correstion that the WSJ title is "Darkness Too Visible" -- implying that YA authors are making these dark things visible that might otherwise not exist in the life of "most" teens. The typo of "Darkness to Visible" is actually closer to what YA authors do: they shine light where it needs to shine, in those awful, dark places where we think we are alone and despair. The YA author makes the others we can reach out to visible to us.

I am a high school teacher, who was on my local library board. I read 20-25 books a year that are ya,, so I know what my students are reading. The books our librarians buy are wonderful and entertaining. I am sure if someone looks hard enough one can find smut-but try the best seller list, see what the kids are reading. Try the hunger games series-there is great stuff out there.

The HIGHEST circulating book in my middle school library this year is A Child Called It. One of the darkest and hardest books to read. And it is non-fiction. We have 8 copies that are constantly checked out.

I have to say i didn't care for Judy Blume as a pre-teen. who wants to read about girls getting their periods? (SO controversial!) i was reading murder mysteries -- looking for escape because my own life seemed pretty dull. now i feel i was lucky to be merely bored. i think young people today have it much harder than we did -- i was a child in the early 70s. Life is complicated, and adolescence is painful. reading can literally save you -- emotionally, mentally. Once we decide some books are too "icky," we are censoring. you have to read lots -- good and bad --to learn discernment, and you have to develop it yourself. if you want stomach-clenching read Running with Scissors -- but it's a really good book!

For writers in doubt about age appropriate material, I suggest: The Pen And Ink Blog: How To Write Books for Boys and Girls http://bit.ly/kx5HSm

I could really care less what the WSJ or the ALA says. I love YA Novels, however having read hundreds of them myself I am OCCASIONALLY shocked by what is being presented as suitable for youths. Of course I'm sure if I read everything that came out, instead of just what appealed to me, I would be shocked much more often. That being said there are a lot of very good YA authors.

Dan, citing yourself as further support for your banal arguments is not proof, but just repeating yourself

I'm surprised to read that Gurdon called the response to her article "intemperate" when she herself used many loaded words: "lurid," "stomach-clenching," "hideously distorted," "gruesome," "dreadfully clunky," etc. Did she expect authors and librarians to react without emotion? Two years ago, she targeted books for teens and kids with environmental messages: "Contemporary children are so drenched with eco-propaganda that it's almost a waste of resources. Like acid rain, but more persistent and corrosive, it dribbles down on them all day long." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992986789427685.html Obviously she just likes to set the cat among the pigeons.

The most revealing aspect of the WSJ article was the statement by the D.C. bookseller that high schoolers who visited her store were not reading YA lit. I am a librarian and find that to be true, which therefore leads me to believe that the readers of these novels are actually middle school kids. And, of course for every young student who gets "saved" when they recognize their problems within a YA book, there are many more who are going to get freaked out with issues like drugs/alcohol, cutting, sex (gay or straight), rape, etc. Perhaps the mom mentioned in the beginning of the article is looking for a book for this type of youngster and was dissapointed in the selection she saw. I don't see any reason to censor, but why are the comments to this article so virulent and don't seem to take into account the less shocking reading tastes of so many 13 year olds out there?

While Gurdon brings up some valid points in her article, her offensive tone and belligerence negate the possibility of real discussion. I think that it is important for us as librarians and educators to seriously (and calmly) consider the content of the books we offer children and teens, but that can't happen in a climate of anger and defensiveness.

One: I can assure you, teens in prior decades read plenty of dark books: a lot of them just weren't specifically written or marketed for teenagers. And teens always read books with sex, too - there just wasn't as much literature with explicit sex, for anyone, as there is now. Two: Teens who lead safe lives, as well as those facing trauma, often enjoy reading dark books. Perhaps for some it's akin to enjoying horror movies; perhaps it helps others empathize with teens they may know who live harder lives. Or perhaps it's something else - I don't know. I do know that I, and many of my friends, and my kids, read and enjoyed books that delved into things we never suffered, and we did not grow into depraved human beings as a result. Three: Dark books, like any other kind of book, can be well-written or badly-written. Now that's a good criterion, I think.

I guess I don't see a problem with censorship for children. They are, well... children. If as a parent, I censor things from my child, it's considered responsible parenting, but if the library censors work from a child it's considered a human rights violation? Movie theaters restrict access to certain kinds of movies to children. Game stores restrict certain games sales to children. I see no problem with censorship for children. Furthermore, what's wrong with critiquing the book publishing industry for promoting works with adult themes to children? I think it's a valid critique. I'm no prude, but I do believe there is such a thing as "age appropriate." It's sad when I'm forced to choose the side of either pornographers or book burners. It's a false dichotomy. I believe there is a sensible middle. I don't agree with either the ALA (of which I'm a member) or safelibraries.org

Meghan Cox Gurdon has been interviewed about the issue. See: False Censorship Claims Exposed by WSJ Author Attacked for Exposing Truth About Young Adult Books; Meghan Cox Gurdon Decries Incomplete and Uninformative Book Reviews http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/06/false-censorship-claims-exposed-by-wsj.html

Now that Rupert Murdoch own the Wall Street Journal (which should be renamed the Wall Street Urinal) you can expect more and more of these cultural attacks. The WSJ editorial board, reflecting right-wing culture, hates teachers unions and everything related to public education. It just like in "It's a Wonderful Life" where the banker couldn't get his hands on the Building & Loan, and so did everything he could to destroy it. WSJ hates the public sector and Public sector unions.

What I find so troublesome about this issue is that both sides mirror the polarity we find in politics on a national and state level. One of the chief responsibilities of review journals is to post a recommended range for teen and tween readers for reviewed books. Obviously many of these books you won't find in a middle school library for this reason, but they will be prominently displayed in a high school one. I'm not sure why this time-tested and logical method of selection is totally ignored (from both sides) in this article and in the reactions to it. A public library usually doesn't have this same type of age segregation for YA materials (though some have tween sections) but any savvy parent can do the homework on the titles or ask a youth services librarian. Isn't that in part what we are paid to do--make book recommendations?

Good for Meghan Cox Gurdon. She's giving fair warning to parents. If, as a parent, you're unfamiliar with a 'kid-lit' book, read it. Just as you'll find with adult lit, there's an enormous amount of dreck out there. I never wanted to censor my kid's reading, my parents didn't censor mine, but if there's anything questionable, I'll read it for myself and we'll talk about it, or at least I'll have my say. I'm gratified that three books I've encouraged my son to read over the years have become among his favorites ('Forbidden Planet', 'Watership Down', 'Rabble in Arms'). Take an interest in what your kids read, don't leave it all up to librarians and teachers. Hopefully they'll be partners, but don't assume.

As a middle school teacher I often feel that I have to walk a fine line between what interests my students and what is truly appropriate. This week I have lost a student to the violence of the streets. He was the target of a street murder. Is it appropriate for my students, many of whom live in the area where the murder took place, to read "Bang!" or "Scorpions," I would say yes. It speaks directly to their reality. Those novels bring light to their situation. YA novels often address the reality of our children, if we want a brighter, cheerier, happier novels, perhaps we need to change the reality our children live in. I agree with Judy Blume, a child will put a book down that they are not ready for and by the same token a child will read when the book speaks to them.

Gurdon just spoke truth to power.

Judy Blume says "if kids aren't ready for it, they'll put it down". But I remember reading a book some years back called "13th Generation" - one of the first books about what is now called "Generation X" - where one of the anecdotes revolved around a kid who got nightmares from reading a Judy Blume book. That is what Generation X is, that is how they can be defined: a generation of latchkey kids so neglected that nobody cared what we read, and in fact gave us stuff to read that made us "grow up too soon". It must be remembered that whatever the Judy Blumes are about, what exactly it is that makes them want to put their darkness into your child's life, they are not necessarily interested in how their issues will affect your kid.

For every teen "saved" by YA, there's another who is introduced to self-destructive behaviors (such as cutting). For every teem "saved" there is another who is freaked out by the horror depicted in YA and decides reading is for weird kids.

I think people also miss the mark as to what YA encompasses. These so-called dark books are for the older teens. Would I call a 12 yo a young adult? nope. Would I call a 16 year old to 22 yo a young adult, absolutely. Parents need to realize that there is a difference between YA and MG.

I have been following this issue with interest, and I have a couple of thoughts. First, as a child I was all too acqainted with some of the darkness the world had to offer. I remember a lot of well-meaning people pushing me to read books about the issues I was dealing with. They were probably good books--and I hated every single one of them. What people didn't understand was that the darkness was where I lived, and books were where I went to escape into the light for a while. My biggest problem with these books is when they show up in the schools in a group reading situations. The Hunger Games was read aloud to my 11 year old daughter in one of her 6th grade classes as a reward for getting their work done early. This was not an English class. When she told me about it, I got a copy and read it. It's an excellent book, but I didn't think it was appropriate for 11 year olds--especially my daughter. Her books of choice were Disney Fairies at the time. The teacher said, "Well, she can always get up and leave." People always say that, but how many brand new middle-school kids have that kind of nerve? I never could have done it, and my daughter couldn't either. She told me later, that she just tried to tune it out. My point is, this shouldn't have happened. Finally, my worry is that the trend these days seems to be edgy. At least, that's what I hear. So where is the edge? As books that were objectionable 10 years ago become more main stream, then the edge will keep pushing out. When does it become truly innapropriate for children?

Every body remembers that men's life seems to be very expensive, but some people require cash for different things and not every one earns enough cash. So to get fast <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com">loan</a> and just term loan would be good solution.

I would like to propose not to hold back until you get enough cash to order different goods! You should get the credit loans or just short term loan and feel fine