 |
 |
|
From
the July/August 2005 issue of The Horn Book Magazine Letters to the Editor March/April 2005 Horn Book Congratulations on your editorial about the need for teaching children about Darwin’s theory of the origin of species (“Another Letter to the First Librarian”), and best of luck with your appeal for help from the First Lady. I went to school in Britain, where—church and state not being legally separated—we had a weekly class known as Scripture, taught by our devoutly Christian headmistress. It leaned heavily on the King James Bible, a great bit of luck for this budding writer. At the same time, in science classes, we were learning about Darwin and evolution, and so far as I know, not a single Christian or non-Christian parent ever protested about the teaching of either the Bible or On the Origin of Species. Isn’t that amazing? I guess they just regarded it all as education. Which takes us right back to your point in the editorial: the more children know, the better chance they have. It would be wonderful if the First Lady were to offer an opinion on this, and perhaps also on the ludicrous recent claim that children’s books lack strong male role models—not to mention the furor over a glimpse, on children’s television, of a family containing two parents of the same sex. But it may be only in our dreams that the First Lady would act as First Librarian. Fitting your conscience into both those jobs at once must be very difficult, especially in this administration. I suspect that the real First Librarian is not in the White House but is one of those unsung, dedicated professionals whom you and I have known, admired, and loved for decades. She (or possibly he) is in some struggling school or city library, probably in a state that gets little publicity and less money. Even though she finds herself labeled “media specialist” these days, she is totally focused on books and kids and the business of bringing them together. Above all, she tries to make sure that her young readers have access to books about Darwinism, creationism, and every other -ism, so that they have the chance, when they grow up, to make fully informed choices for themselves. And I don’t know about the First Lady, but I bet the First Librarian subscribes to the Horn Book. Susan Cooper
I agreed with your editorial encouraging Laura Bush to “tell parents and teachers why children need to understand Darwin’s theory of the origin of species.” But the Horn Book has a (small) role in this situation. In that same issue not one science book was reviewed, let alone starred, and not one article addressed science books, though one columnist did cite a dinosaur book as an example of recent books in which an intriguing concept is ruined by poor execution. In your editorial you highlighted two excellent children’s books specifically on evolution. I think understanding also comes from science/nature books that present evolution through children’s various interests and gradually deliver a broad perspective on the long history of life. For instance, a book on bears could explain that bears evolved from the dog family, or that research shows that polar bears evolved more recently than other bears, probably in response to the Ice Age. Writers say they’re afraid to touch the subject of evolution. Writers and editors of science books receive little support from the major reviewers. Librarians have to fight school boards. It all conspires to reduce the number of books mentioning evolution, and where there’s scarcity of information, doubt and misinformation creep in. Horn Book’s May/June issue featured poetry. Can we hope a science or a nature issue is coming? Suzanne McIntire
Your request of Mrs. Bush was insensitive, inconsiderate, and inappropriate. I specialize in, write, and teach children’s literature, and the Horn Book is a great resource for me. However, I am appalled that you would use it for a personal political platform and suggest to the First Lady that, having been a librarian, she should agree with your views. You also are ill-informed about science and religion. There are many scientists who believe in God and in creation. There are many scientists who do not follow their own rule: the scientific process. They state as fact what is still theory. They do not draw their conclusions from analysis of fact but rather determine a hypothesis to be a proven fact. For centuries, people have tried to prove that the Bible is purely religion and not at all scientific. For centuries, new evidence keeps coming out to prove information once ignored. Interesting that you say that children should have the opportunity to gain knowledge and not be kept from hearing what parents don’t want them to hear, yet you think that children should not be given the right to explore the knowledge we have on science and religion and that it is okay for schools (and apparently editors) to withhold certain credible theories because they are “religious.” As for Harry Potter, I was suspicious when the first book came out that it would be another poorly written trend like Goosebumps. After reading the first volume, I had to admit that the characterization, plot, themes, and scenes are very well written. I would have no objection to using the book because of literary reasons. As for the religious objections, your own magazine had an excellent article a few years back in which the writer, Kimbra Wilder Gish, explained her reasons for not wanting her children to read about witches. While the witchcraft in Harry Potter seems to most of us as innocent as Casper the Friendly Ghost, Gish believes that to make witchcraft seem harmless is not consistent with the fact that witchcraft is increasingly seriously practiced in this country, often causing harm to others. Perhaps your next letter to the First Librarian, whose role as First Lady is primary at this time, should be an apology. Will C. Howell
Re: Peter Sieruta, my new favorite grouch. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the exquisite and hilarious article by Peter Sieruta, “Ten Things That Tick Me Off!” Unfortunately, I was trying to read it at my desk in the children’s room of the library and disturbed several young patrons by repeatedly laughing out loud in startled bursts that I tried unsuccessfully to muffle, creating strange choking sounds I pretended were coughs. “Hayfever,” I said, as I wiped at the tears running down my face and snortled into my handkerchief. I was doing taxes earlier this weekend and was quite tired and depressed, so I can’t express my delight in having Peter’s article waiting for me when I came to work. I moonlight as a children’s book agent and would like to quote Peter’s comments about what we don’t need to see any more of in children’s books to all my prospective clients. Thank you, thank you, thank you, you delightfully cranky curmudgeon! Martha Jackson
I very much enjoyed Peter D. Sieruta’s recent venting and found many of his points refreshingly on target, particularly when he asks the question, “Who is this book for, anyway?” and decries the proliferation of message-y books by hypocritical celebrity authors. And I’m partially in his corner when he makes point number three: “Enough with the verse novels!” However, rather than wiping them all off the map, I would like to make the case that, as with any form of writing, there are good and bad verse novels, and some in between. On the high side think Karen Hesse’s Out of the Dust and Robert Cormier’s Frenchtown Summer. Though I consider poetry to be my first language, when I decided to write my novel The Fattening Hut in verse, it was only after I had tried to deal with the same information in prose and found it less effective in conveying what I had to say. Pat Lowery Collins
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was laughing so hard on the subway ride home last night that the other passengers were physically moving away from the lunatic. (As a teacher, librarian, and reviewer, I have two galleys in my backpack and one in my hand . . . a rolling suitcase for hauling books to work and back.) Mr. Sieruta, you have expressed my thoughts exactly. My spellchecker can’t believe how I have been spelling the word magic lately (“Magyk”), and one of my editors wants to know what I think of the new Madonna title. What he said. Again. Thank you. Your piece has earned its place on my required reading list. Lisa Von Drasek |
 |
  
 
  |
||||||||
