Roger Sutton

Sarah, have you read their HUMAN (AND ANTI-HUMAN) VALUES IN CHILDREN'S BOOKS? Spooky stuff. The feminist anti-porn movement was just heating up when i was finishing college, and I remember a friend going on about how any kind of "objectification of women" should be outlawed. I asked her how such objectification would be determined, and she said "we would have a Committee." The CIBC was the answer to her dreams!

Posted : May 20, 2014 02:01

Sarah

As an aside-- I wish that someone would write a book on the movement that included the Council on Interracial Books, as I agree that a longer-view, historical perspective would add a lot to the conversation.

Posted : May 20, 2014 01:19

Sarah

Well, one could also ask the question another way: are there really no lines to be crossed, or do people simply disagree about where the lines are? For instance, would the CBC have gone ahead with the process and awarded Donald Sterling this week? What about a book that advocated for a white supremacist group? What about a book that described children using racial slurs? A book promoting hate crimes? When we're not discussing the freedom to write or to have books on public library shelves, but the question of honoring books, is the argument truly an absolutist: ideology doesn't matter? Personally, I do think Limbaugh should have been disqualified. (And certainly at the very least the future name of the award should be changed from "children's choice.") I realize others see this as a form of censorship or an imposition of personal values on a process they think is impartial. But my larger question, beyond this particular case, is with the idea that it's possible to disengage from ideology. I think the idea that one can separate out ideology and thereby be impartial is itself ideological and very partisan, and that it often conveniently preserves the status quo. I'm saying that the fact that these questions are difficult, messy, uncomfortable, full of meaningful disagreement, and in some ways unanswerable isn't a reason not to ask them, or to completely avoid drawing lines and deny that partisan judgments are already being made. I'm not just speaking theoretically, either. For instance: if the make up of the Caldecott committee this year had been predominantly Native people, would those members have judged the artistic value of Locomotive differently? If the director of the CBC were Native, would the decision to proceed with honoring Limbaugh have been different? If leaving aside questions of ideology doesn't reflect impartiality, but rather who has the power to make the judgments, is that something different?

Posted : May 19, 2014 08:17

Roger Sutton

I'm not sure what you're saying, Sarah. Should the CBC have not included Limbaugh's book on the ballot because he is racist? Or is the book racist (I haven't read it)? Should the CBC change its criteria for finalists so as not to rely strictly on sales figures? If they ARE going to vet their finalists with some kind of ideological test, do you really think everyone will be happy? I don't. We don't even have to go into some kind of theoretical space of non-relativism to see that determinations of racism in children's books are more incoherent than not. You seem to be thinking that "yes, but what about those authors/books that really ARE racist," as if there's going to be agreement in the room. There isn't. It's not a theoretical question steeped in relativism, it's an actual question that gets asked all the time. See JAKE AND HONEYBUNCH GO TO HEAVEN, THE SNOWY DAY, THE SIGN OF THE BEAVER, THE ABSOLUTELY TRUE DIARY OF A PART-TIME INDIAN, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, LITTLE BLACK SAMBO . . . . (Forgive the caps, I'm not shouting!) All of these books have been accused of racism; all have their defenders as well. What would you have us do?

Posted : May 19, 2014 01:54

Sarah

I'm still intrigued by the number of people who've asserted that their concern is not with Limbaugh's ideology, but with the commercial aspects of both his authorship and the selection process. It feels particularly noteworthy given the context of the ongoing We Need Diverse Books campaign and discussion, and other recent conversations like the one spurred by the Junot Diaz piece in the New Yorker, MFA vs. POC. The reluctance to engage with the question of Limbaugh's racism (or at least with the question of whether it should have any bearing on his receiving the award) feels-- to me-- to be tied to a larger reluctance when it comes to including questions of race and representation in the evaluation of children's books. I do often feel like an allegiance to the notion of subjectivity, and a belief in the value of remaining impartial in the face of those potentially subjective perspectives, can lead to a paralysis of relativism. If people might disagree on what constitutes stereotyping or problematic representations (or believe that prejudice equates to a form of diversity)-- better just to leave those questions for readers to sort out. Even to engage with questions of race seems to bring the discomfort of potential censorship or "politicization," so these questions are often simply avoided when it comes to awards or recommendations. I guess I'm just not convinced that this approach is either truly impartial, or one that serves the field well. The discomfort some feel with this avoidance is nothing new, either, I guess. It also seems worth noting here that in 2009, years before the NBA issued a lifetime ban to Donald Sterling, Limbaugh was forced to drop his own bid to become one of the joint owners of the St. Louis Rams. Players and officials objected to his history of racist comments, and declared that because of it he had no place in their league. DeMaurice Smith, at that time the executive director of the NFL players, wrote of his objection to Limbaugh: "...sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us a reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred." Children's literature may have no romantic mandate for unity, but refusing to honor discrimination and hatred seems like something we might agree on. http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=4562338&src=desktop http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/03/07/the-20-worst-racial-attacks-limbaughs-advertise/184776

Posted : May 17, 2014 01:06

Paula

Why do people claim to embrace diversity and then get utterly riled up when someone expresses a political viewpoint different from theirs? Such behavior conveys an unsettling implication that "diversity" is only skin deep. Very disappointing.

Posted : May 16, 2014 10:32

leda

Thanks, Roger. I am very grumpy about this. No one ever said popular taste correlated in any way with intelligence, insight, etc. Look at the adult bestseller list, for one of many examples. This time, though, it is the kids who lose out. They're the victims. I hate that. And isn't it the publishers who are at fault for publishing such crap? Vicky Smith has a good critique as well. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/rush-rush-rushing-abyss/

Posted : May 16, 2014 02:17

Martine

If all things were fair, Ursula LeGuin would be richer than the queen of England for writing her Earthsea Trilogy, and Rowling would be teaching to supplement her writing income. This is just one more thing after the last thing after the thing before that... Thanks for always taking a bite out of the hide of that elephant in the room, Roger. I love the way you think.

Posted : May 16, 2014 01:02

Roberta

Okay, so it's a popularity contest of who won sold the most books? Then if Rush out sold everyone than his award should titled "The Most Books Sold in the Year." Not the "Author of the Year."

Posted : May 15, 2014 11:37

LEE BENNETT HOPKINS

ABOUT the CBC...Remember what it was? Remember John Donovan? Paula Quint?

Posted : May 15, 2014 10:15

Joseph Miller

One thing I think is being forgotten in this debate is sometimes children like a book professionals don't. Whenever I see this type of discrepancy, I am reminded of Pete the Cat. Both Kirkus and SLJ pretty much panned the first book and yet it's hugely popular with kids. I'm sure the reviewers for both these fine professional resources believed what they were saying when they wrote: "Pete may seem like an appealing role model to adults, but any child who has experienced the smirching of a new pair of shoes probably won’t buy the cool he’s peddling." (Kirkus) or "The moral of the story—keep going no matter what happens to you in life—may sound like good advice, but it doesn't instill any sense of power in children; it just tells them to accept their fate. The downloadable song might help spark interest, but there's not much here to get excited about." (SLJ) Sometimes kids have different tastes than professionals, but for me that is okay. Would we be having the same discussion if Rush was an apolitical figure? I don't know. Maybe we would, but that still wouldn't change the fact that sometimes kids like things we might not like or find offensive in some way, but we're not here to be thought police. We're here to promote the love of reading, even of books we don't agree with or particularly like.

Posted : May 15, 2014 09:55

Emma D Dryden, drydenbks LLC

Hear, hear, Roger! Inspired by your post and the terrific, lively conversation going on in response to Harold Underdown's post, here are some thoughts about awards that I posted earlier today: http://emmaddryden.blogspot.com/2014/05/setting-standard-at-what-cost.html

Posted : May 15, 2014 08:49

KT Horning

Even in the olden days, Roger, the teachers were given a small number of preselected books from which to share with children so they could make their "choices." I know teachers who were very frustrated with the process and with the books they had to work with to start with. And who, exactly, is it that CBC cares about caring? Is getting the media attention for calling Rush Limbaugh "children's author of the year" more important to them than supporting real children's authors? I have an idea-- how about CBC's "children's author of the year" is automatically next year's Children's Lit Ambassador? Then a Rush can spend 2015 talking about the importance of reading on his radio show and at public appearances, and real authors like Kate DiCamillo can spend their time writing.

Posted : May 15, 2014 07:17

Sarah

Yes, and I guess I see in those two arguments the messiness that can make the whole thing uncomfortable to talk about. To me, those arguments-- taken to an extreme-- start to sound a lot like their opposite (in the desire to remain fair and impartial and not censor, or to acknowledge that objectivity isn't possible, I start to hear echoes of "telling me I have to serve gay people infringes on my religious liberty" or "Donald Sterling is a private business man with the right to say what he wants.") I'm not saying the questions aren't tricky, or that there isn't the possibility of a slippery slope-- but not engaging the questions in the name of fairness feels like a cop out to me, and a way of denying that arguments against intervention or judgment aren't neutral, and they can lead to some slippery places, too.

Posted : May 15, 2014 05:17

Roger Sutton

I think people ARE talking about that, Sarah. But if you say you're going to give an award based on a popular vote, and your candidates are selected on the basis of their sales (i.e., popularity), you can't turn around and say "...but not THIS one." There is the additional problem that you won't ever get agreement on what constitutes "racist propaganda."

Posted : May 15, 2014 04:18

Sarah

...And the elephant was named bigotry. I'm a little startled that people don't want to talk about the fact that a hatemonger, whose book is explicitly aimed at countering "multicultural stories" with racist propaganda, has just been given an award by an organization of children's publishing professionals. Sure, it's easier to talk about the flawed criteria-- but what about how allegiance to those criteria means children just saw the CBC honor a bigot in their names?

Posted : May 15, 2014 03:55

Roger Sutton

Except, K.T., the original IRA-CBC Children's Choices were "books with at least a modicum of literary quality," vetted by teachers. But nobody cared. By rewarding books that already are bestsellers, the fact the somebody cares is pre-determined. But it's really stupid. The CBC came of age when schools and libraries were still the main conduits for trade children's books. I think they are seeking relevance in a changed market, and I wish them luck, but these awards are just embarrassing for everyone.

Posted : May 15, 2014 03:34

Roger Sutton

Debbie, according to the CBC website (which is back up), more than a million votes were cast in all.

Posted : May 15, 2014 03:26

KT Horning

It's not Rush's politics for me, Roger. I'd feel the same way if Jon Stewart wrote a children's book and won. What galls me is that they claim he is the "Children's Choice." Seriously? Over Rick Riordan and Jeff Kinney? How many kids have even read his book or know who he is? What this really does is demonstrate how rigged CBC's whole Children's Choice concept is. Always has been, long before Rush won. Adults narrow down the list to start with. Of these five, kiddies, which one do you like best? Which will probably come down to which of the five they have read or which cover they like the best. And if you are going to do this, why not narrow the list down to five books with at least a modicum of literary quality, rather than the five best sellers? Not to say the two are mutually exclusive, but still, how much more promotion does Jeff Kinney need? And let's not kid ourselves -- this is nothing more than a promotion gimmick. And if this is all it is, why do we even need a Children's Book Council any more? Why don't they just promote thei best seller list and be done with it?

Posted : May 15, 2014 03:23

Debbie Reese

If, indeed, inaccuracies are besides the point, we're all headed for a cliff. Here's my review of the ways that Limbaugh dealt with slavery (he didn't) and depictions of Native characters (a tribeless girl named Freedom, and of course, Squanto): http://goo.gl/rFrThk It is, as you note, a huge gala, but seems that it would be helpful to know how many votes were cast overall.

Posted : May 15, 2014 03:00