Picture book outcry misses the point
Posted
Updated
Matt Ottley's Requiem For A Beast: winner of the Picture Book of the Year. (Hachette Children's Books)
My husband has artificial legs. When Rob was a young child, his doctors told his parents that Rob would not be digging ditches for a living, so they should encourage him instead to read. He was going to have to rely on his intellect to make his way in the world.
Every Saturday morning Rob's father Vince would drive him to the Wynnum library to borrow a fresh stack of books. Rob was never censored in what he borrowed, never told what he could or should be allowed to read. Instead, his tastes ranged widely, taking in different genres and leading him to adult science fiction and hefty non-fiction while barely a teenager.
I, on the other hand, read children's stories well into early adulthood. I reveled in the mythical beasts of Narnia and Middle Earth. I lingered over L M Montgomery and the Aussie bush setting of Ivan Southall's adventures. I am still passionate about young adult fiction, often preferring to read it over other kinds of novels.
My six-year-old step-daughter is different again. Rob and I both enjoy selecting books for her and encouraging her to choose titles for herself. She has an enthusiasm for Shaun Tan and glitter-covered pink fairy books in equal measure.
There is no such thing as a typical child. We should not therefore expect a typical child reader. To do so denies the capacity of many children to absorb and process complex and challenging ideas. It seeks to limit their access to a rich diversity of literature.
Last week's outcry over the selection of Matt Ottley's Requiem for a Beast as the Children's Book Council of Australia Book of the Year for Older Readers is a terrible shame.
It's not a shame because the chorus of disapproval assumes that a picture book is a children's book, even though Ottley's work is not the first illustrated book of confronting themes to win a major literary award.
It's not a shame because the book's detractors have ignored its clear positioning as a title for young adults, an audience typically defined by Australian publishers as teenagers in middle or senior grades of high school.
Even so, I am disdainful of any parent's apathy in not taking 10 minutes to review a picture book's appropriateness for their own children. Like other ways children access creative media - movies, television, music, games, internet - the onus is on parents to be engaged in what their children consume. No award sticker, or classification guideline for that matter, is a substitute for getting involved - and interested - in what your children play, watch and read.
No, the public remonstrations are a terrible shame because they build, and then set fire to, a straw-man argument. Detractors ask if we really want to read profanity and racist dialogue in our children's books? But this is an insidious question. What can the reasonable answer be except no? Most of us, when asked, would of course say we don't want our children exposed to crude language or ugly themes before they are ready.
But this of course masks the real issue. That ugliness exists. That racism, violence and ignorance are real. And books, especially fiction, are still the best vehicles for exploring confronting ideas. Today's children can readily access demonstrations of violence and bigotry on YouTube, Xbox, or hip hop downloaded to their mobile phones. But in these media there is rarely interpretation or balance. There is rarely the support of a storyline to help children understand its context, or fully-realised characters to whom children can relate so they not only understand but empathise with the consequences of such behaviour.
Fictional narratives do provide these things, and remain one of the most powerful instruments for showing us the truth of humanity, and of inhumanity. Does a book need to have dark themes and ugly language to be relevant and moving? Of course not. But nor should we discount the importance and value of books that do.
There is no paucity of good children's literature that is positive and inoffensive, much of it conveying high concepts in humourous and accessible ways. But if we want to encourage a diversity of culture, ideas and perspectives in our community then we also have to embrace a diversity of literature for children and young people.
Matt Ottley's Requiem for a Beast is an exquisitely crafted book about guilt and redemption. It is a highly complex narrative, deploying multiple story threads told in a non-linear structure. It juxtaposes one of the most harrowing social justice issues of Australia's recent history - the Stolen Generations - against an individual character's struggle to understand his father and himself. It demands much of the reader, both teenager and adult, and rewards multiple readings.
A casual glance through its pages would tell a parent this is a challenging read for even bright young children. Yet I will be proud to share it with my step-daughter as soon as she signals to me she's ready.
Kate Eltham is chief executive of the Queensland Writers Centre.
Search for news
Comments (55)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
elliott:
27 Aug 2008 10:22:54am
I teach at a university, and I struggle to get my students to read anything except text messages. Radio National recently did a program which revealed that over half of all the newly published novels in Japan are now being published straight to mobile phones.
I'd be quite happy if they looked at picture books - my exams might have to change a bit though.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PaulB:
27 Aug 2008 10:27:18am
The irony is, most of the critics of this book, would encourage little Jimmy to read the bible. Their twisted certainty that it contains gods laws and the moral direction we should all embrace, is laughable.
Deuteronomy 20: 10-14 "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Izzy:
27 Aug 2008 11:10:14am
The passage you quote is from the Old Testament and is illustrative of God's judgement on those who oppose and corrupt the moral standards He has established. The command is limited to a particular phase in history, namely the establishment of Israel as a nation who were under Law. You fail to emphasise that the first command is to seek terms of peace. It is only when such an offer is rejected that judgement follows. The real point of course, is that God views sin seriously and the consequences in this instance are severe.
In contrast, the New Testament speaks of morality, loving those who hate us, forgiveness and direction in a world that has lost its way. The correlation between rapid moral decline and the rejection of Biblical values is historically obvious. I'm afraid your arms like mine, are too short to box with God.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
brad:
27 Aug 2008 11:27:13am
Well done PaulB. It never takes long for the bitter athiests like yourself to find some obscure relevance to a story so they can jump up and down and preach the gospel of their hatred of Christians. Find a different opinion piece to post against champion. Besides, the authors arguement is skewed. The issue is not that a picture book has these themes in it - (graphic novels wouldn't be that dissimilar and can be quite violent) - but that the 'Childrens Book Council of Australia' gave the award. The authors arguement would work better if an adult literature council, or similar, was the group to give the award. The Childrens Book Council name suggests books aimed at children in their very young years, as opposed to teenagers and those old enough to choose for themselves.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
what the:
27 Aug 2008 12:06:06pm
Not like the religious to miss the point entirely. Such a huge fuss is made about this book, yet the bible which encourages homophobia, sexism, etc, is filled with violence throughtout its pages is readily available as it's Gods book. Got to love the hypocricy. You think this book isn't trying to teach some modern ideas of morality, not just ones from 2000 years ago?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Izzy:
27 Aug 2008 12:24:33pm
Please justify but one of your comments. Where does the Bible encourage homophobia, sexism, etc. ? Can you tell me? Is violence always immoral? A father defends his family against an attacker... is this immoral? Please answer. Hypocrisy where?
Modern ideas of morality... So what you are saying is that morals are transitory and changable. We do what we want when we feel like it. Yes that's modern morals, and look how wonderful society is today!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
brad:
27 Aug 2008 1:21:10pm
At no point in my post above did I state that I was religious in anyway. I pointed to the irrelevance of PaulB's post not the validity of his opinion. We aren't discussing the Bible or its place in the world, for good or bad. We're discussing a childrens organisation giving an award to a book that is inappropriate for there target audience.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
27 Aug 2008 12:07:38pm
What about the name suggests that its aimed at children of very young years?
Izzy, What you think is obvious is probably more leaning a lack of a knowledge of history. We do live in fairly nasty times no doubt, most of the nastiness coming from religions of one type or another. But compared to the abominable way people were treated in the past, and the justification to treat people that way, which of course was religion, we are doing much better.
And the sooner people give up the extremely vain belief that a deity favours them over these other religous types, and thinks their book is far superior to those other guys book, the sooner we will become even more just as a society.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gone with the windy:
27 Aug 2008 12:22:43pm
The Childrens Book Council name suggests books aimed at children in their very young years, as opposed to teenagers and those old enough to choose for themselves.
suggests??? Sounds like conjecture to me there Brad. Last time i looked you were a child until you turned 17.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gone with the windy:
27 Aug 2008 1:56:50pm
Is the New Zealand Book Council strictly for Kiwis in NZ or does it cater for those OS as well?
What about the national Book Council?
How on earth can you argue that this book is aimed at young children because the word Children is in the title?
Is the Jewish book council aimed at any particular area of the Jewish faith or any age group?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Peter D:
27 Aug 2008 12:21:53pm
One begs to ask how your students even got to University and, moreover, how are theey managing to stay there? To get to that level of education andd not have a developed, nurtured instinct of reading books or any kind of literature (other than text messages of course) is unfathomable. Lord help us all if these people are going to be our professionals of tomorrow in whom we trust our society's very survival to.
It seems the problems of primary education in this country flow all the way through to the uppermost levels of the education system. I wanted to believe that 'illiterate student' was an urban myth.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Edith:
27 Aug 2008 10:38:41am
Matt Ottley's book is a disgrace. It is all very well to say that it is intended for adult audiences, but the book is also being marketed to younger children. It is all too easy to hide behind the mantra that parents should supervise and censor any material that is inappropriate to children, but this does not remove the responsibility of authors and publishers from promoting this kind of stuff which is increasingly becoming more and more intrusive and available in the lives of young children. In many cases parents need directing as well.
Morality amongst young people is taking a nose dive, and it's is easy to see why. For example, when "Gone with The Wind" was released in 1939, audiences were outraged at the use of the word "Damn", particularly directed towards a woman. Compare this to the stuff kids see today. Kids are exposed to Henson, Gordon Ramsey, gory console games, DVD's full of profanity, popular music filled with innuendo and socially destructive messages and advertising completely devoid of responsibility, consequences and reality. It's time people stopped using art and entertainment as a license to pollute the hearts and minds of our most valuable possessions.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pat:
27 Aug 2008 10:52:44am
Edith, lest you lose the opportunity to let us know before all the brouhaha subsides, tell us what you are doing to stop the US government (to take one close to some Australians' hearts) from killing hundreds, if not thousands, of "our most precious possessions" who happen to live in Iraq. Or just take a stroll through some of our impoverished, dispossessed, and marginalised communities here in what used to be called the "Land of Milk and Honey", and tell us what you can do for the "precious possessions" that our Governments condemn to continuing poverty and despair. If you not prepared to walk the walk Edith, how 'bout sparing us your hypocritical bleatings.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Edith:
27 Aug 2008 11:28:33am
To be fair pat, your post has little to do with this article or my comments. The war in Iraq is regrettable, but your assertion that the US are dliberately killing innocent civillians is preposterous. The rules of engagement are particularly strict and unprecedented if you care to investigate them. Did you mention the thousands of Iraqi civillians these terrorists are killing themselves? Apparently not. Did you mention the thousands of civillians killed in genocide, ethnic cleansing and local war within these countries by their own citizens? Apparently not.
"Impoverished disposessed and marginalised"? My friend you need to travel more and then you'll see the definition of these words. I am walking the walk by protesting against this book. This site is called "opinion" and I'm giving mine. What are you doing pat?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
27 Aug 2008 3:02:12pm
Edith your right about only one thing and that is that this is a place for opinions. In my opinion you are trying to deny a natural evolution or morals and Judgments. Are you trying to say that the word Damn is immoral, or is it only immoral when it is directed toward women? My son is only 10 and we had a discussion only yesterday about swear words, his opinion was that is only offensive because people take offence and that the words themselves harmed no one. I explained to him that the truth is a far more effective argument than swearing. Point is what offends you, offends you because you so choose to let it. The world is full of beauty and ugliness and if your not showing your children both sides of it youre setting them up for a big fall when reality bites. Does not sound like something that you should be doing to some one you love to me.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Odge:
27 Aug 2008 3:09:31pm
Yes, keep their minds clean, pure and sweet so it will be easier for the powers that be to exploit them in the sweat shops and battle fields of the future
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Ford:
27 Aug 2008 11:21:43am
Yes and back in 1939 segregation was all the rage, hardly a paragon of morality...bad language out...opression of an entire race...in!
I would think that sort of behaviour was far more 'polluting' to our 'most valuable possessions' (your post is so riddled with cliches it's hard to keep a straight face!) than a few naughty words.
I rather suspect from your post that you've never actually seen the book in question, Edith.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Devo:
27 Aug 2008 11:25:27am
Yes, yes Edith, and it was 15 miles to school through the snow. We've heard all this before, dear, just have a cuppa and keep your moral panic to yourself.
She's definitely right about one thing though. Kids are exposed to Henson at a very early age. I personally saw "The Muppets Treasure Island" at the tender age of 13, and I'm only just now recovering from the trauma.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
criminal not:
27 Aug 2008 1:28:30pm
yes i saw the muppets when i was growing up.... oops look at the time i've gotta go rob some old ladies!!!!!
get with it people, it's a book... if kids havent been subjected to swear words then they have probably lived a very sheltered life (or in hungary living in a dungeon) or raised by ned flanders
primary school students know what "swear words" are, if not i dare suggest there is a problem hell my 4 year old knows what the "naughty" words are and he knows if he uses them he will be punished and i dont swear around him he gets them from pre-school and i sit him down and tell him they are adult words and they should only be used in certain circumstances and not until his older and understands what they mean, i guess i must be one of those resposible parents who lets their child know why not to use such words and actually explain it to him why we have such words, and guess what he don't swear because he understands which is very good for a 4 year old... plus if you listened to the news over the last few days on this story the author said it was aimed at 12-17 year olds which are still classed as children but by this stage are at school telling their teachers where to go.... whats the problem?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
faholo:
27 Aug 2008 4:36:03pm
I loved the muppets, sorry they scared you. If you all remember the outcry with the Lion King when it first came out. I took some of me children and my nephews and they all saw the movie differently. Because it was in parts dark my nephew turned around and became friends with the girls behind him. Did it harm them or cause nightmares no.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gone with the windy:
27 Aug 2008 12:25:14pm
Let's not forget the most important thing here-
A responsible parent will be in control of what her/his child can and cannot consume.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Clownfish:
27 Aug 2008 12:26:53pm
Who says the book is being marketed to "younger children"? Younger than what? 18? 15?
I haven't read the book, but the title alone tells me that it is not a "kiddy book".
From the descriptions of it I suspect that my 12-going-on-13 year old son (who has lately turned into a massive Clive Barker fan) would have no problem with it, and neither would I have a problem with him reading it.
Values, values ... an acquaintance was once surprised that I had let my children watch "The Emerald Forest" because of its ample nudity. They, on the other hand, had no problem letting their kids watch "Lethal Weapon".Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Flea:
27 Aug 2008 3:24:15pm
It won the award for older readers - readers in their mid to late teens. Hardly aimed at younger children Edith!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
book worm:
28 Aug 2008 6:37:37am
Actually it won best picture book of the year, not best older readers book.
This is a clarification that need to be made if we are discussing the appropriateness of this book for younger readers. Personally I think the CBCA should consider forming two picture book categories next year, one for younger and one for older readers, and then maybe there wont be so much fuss. There are certainly enough talented Australian authors and illustrators to fill a list!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
YeahButNoBut:
27 Aug 2008 5:17:51pm
Edith should perhaps do some research into the classification of 'young adult' books - though nominally classed as 'childrens', it's a subset of books aimed at teenagers. A short visit to the shelves of your local library or book store should introduce you to the genre.
Also, Edith, graffiti scrawled on the walls in Pompeii suggests the adults of the time were horrified by the decline of society, pas evidenced by the language, behaviour, and disrespect of the youth of their day. Your arguments follow that fine tradition and I'm sure will be made by your own decendants when they are old and conservative.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Matt Ottley:
27 Aug 2008 11:58:27pm
is anyone here involved in htpp://takingitglobal.org A Global internet forum which goals are to inspire,inform and involve our youth of today,towards the actual preparation towards being the Leaders of our world of tomorow?This is a largely led forum by our most intelligent youths,all working towards learning how to become responsible leaders,understanding social,cultural as well as Global issues,in which we as adults often forget has a marked affect upon our youths of today.Here is a prime example of adults and youths alike using the medioum of creativity,the arts,education,towards not only learning how to take responsible action,but actually are taking action,which is much more than I can say for many closed mindedness of adults whom make a huge noise over a book,whether we as adults like this book or not,whether we as parents are as responsible as we can be,or just don't give a damn,our youths from all ages today have left the vast majority of us behind and are as well will do their own thing regardless of how good a parent or not one is.Not one youth involved in takingitglobal support violence,they are for peace,change and the more we as adults fuss over this book,only serves to make these children,our youths to want to read it just to find out what all the fuss is.We may be able to control our child/children when in our home,or in the classroom,but what they decide to get up to outside and away from home or the classroom,thesewe cannot controll.I urge you all to take a look at what our youths are really doing,involved in by checking this website out,some of you may learn something from our youths of today.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Geoff:
27 Aug 2008 11:18:26am
I drive about once a week, and only then to shop. I was in traffic last week, and coming up to some roadworks when I was passed by a people mover with a "Baby on Board" sign on the rear window. Whoever was driving was exceeding the speed limit, lane changing, and continued to overtake even as the road was narrowing into one lane.
I thought "You total hypocrite," you expect people to respect you because you have a baby in your vehicle, yet you do nothing yourself to respect that child.
I now wonder how many people who condemn this book are like that driver? Its one thing to want others to protect children, its another thing entirely to do the right thing by them yourself.
Is the 'outrage' against this book simply a desire to create children in the parent's own image?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
27 Aug 2008 11:19:55am
I see I'm not the only one to make the connection between these facile morons who scream " for the children" when they're actually just prudes, boring unimaginative people who don't want to ever be challenged. I think these people need to get a grip. The book looks lovely and we're moving on as a society. Watching "Australian Idol" does far worse to children than reading a challenging ( with a good purpose ) book.
I'm sick of conservatives trying to deaden creativity.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PeteG:
27 Aug 2008 12:09:00pm
Morons, deadening creativity huh?
Since 1960 there has been:
560% increase in violent crime.
400% increase in illigitimate births.
300% increase in divorce rates.
200% increase in teenage suicide.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Will:
27 Aug 2008 12:59:42pm
Right, and since 1960 how much has the population increased? How much has been revealed of the corruption in the bodies that hold authority over us? How much harder is it to get an education?
I'm a young person who looks at the government and the church and all I see is a bunch of money grubbing old white guys looking after themselves and their mates at the expense of the environment and the society that elected them. These are the people I meant to look to for an example?
No, none of this makes me depressed, violent and disillusioned. It's because someone made a picture book with challenging themes.
Oh noes! We're all doomed! A picture book.
Fool.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
touchstone:
27 Aug 2008 1:48:23pm
Will, I think the point that is being made is that it is inappropriate to give such a book the Children's Book Prize. Your comments about the church have nothing to do with this argument and are offensive, bitterly minority stereotyped and grossly unjustified. I don't think abusing people and calling them fools simply becaue you don't agree does much for your contribution to this site. Play the ball and not the man.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
27 Aug 2008 2:03:52pm
Well it seems religion and consorship are intertwined doesn't it? The point Will was making is that statistics can be fairly dimwitted, which is a very valid point.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
NT boy:
27 Aug 2008 2:47:07pm
A huge increase in population..
Who says those that are born iligitimate are a bad thing? they may not have both parents but for many that is a blessing.
a huge increase in people reporting crime as it is now easier to prosecute with advanced sciences and it is no longer a sin to be the one raped or attacked.
divorce in 1960 was very hard to obtain...
Far more stress leveled at children to succeed - more that neccesary in fact.
dont blame books for your figures.. blame society as a whole.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
NT boy:
27 Aug 2008 11:36:25am
Each child learns different things in different ways, but this book is a mild learn compared with the "kill everyone and rip their heads off" games most kids are allowed to play on their playstations or xbox's - my children grew up reading Terry Prattchet who has a way of twisting worlds and lives and who has killed off quite a few characters in gruesome ways - but it is the story behind these events that keeps my kids on tenderhooks waiting for the next installment of this curious author.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jim:
27 Aug 2008 11:41:01am
I agree with this completely. You'll generally find that it is the Illiterati" that are the most vocal complainers in these cases.
As Agatha Christie said, "The worst thing you can do to someone is shield them from reality."Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Sam Guest:
27 Aug 2008 3:35:59pm
To quote a line from a song "if ignorance is bliss then wipe the smile from my face. Just like it's now accepted that exposing children to colds and flus boosts their immune system exposure to nudity and violence are not detrimental to the child if they have diligent parents advising them of the context. To the ignorant prudes out there, would you ban anatomy books because of depictions of unclothed bodies?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gone with the windy:
27 Aug 2008 12:31:04pm
Great way to increase book sales!
I might write my own- It's a pop up story book about an obese, gay, aboriginal and female senior. Aimed at the 0-5 market. It has words and phrases like: fatty fatty fat fat, oi darky, what you lookin at you old queer and you cry like a girl.
It is a book on loving thy neighbour.Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
priceless:
27 Aug 2008 12:53:36pm
Dear Edith/Izzy and the ilk
Your moralistic frenzy is completely understandable coming from people who appear to be so shallow and narrow minded that any form of freedom or sense of empathy toward our fellow man should be censored immediately and those who continue to practise such heathen and pagan rituals will be punished.
We are barbarians, chest thumping, crotch scratching, illiterate, war hungry heretics with a twisted mentality on what is right.
May this God of the New Testament, Old Testament, Koran etal forgive us all. Books, all books should be banned as well as TV, magazines, documentaries, free speech, make that any speech, thoughts, ideas, spirituality anything that tries to lift us above the moral centre of humanity which was created in the same year that the first Pope was recognized.
Geez people. It is BOOK. If you don't want your children to read it, don't buy it.
And the author should be shot for writing about people of colour. We can't have that rubbish ruining society.
If God has a colour I wonder what it is?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whitelephantg:
27 Aug 2008 2:28:55pm
Kate Eltham-a beautifully succinct and thoughtfull piece-and it is so saddening to see the responses of the flat earth fundamentalists-people who, if they lived in the middle east would be one type of fundamentalist if they lived in Israel another type.
Hang on while I get a branch and whip myself for some impure thoughts concerning the adventures of Adam and Eve....Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
thelonenut:
27 Aug 2008 2:58:36pm
My mind has been boggled so much of late, I didn't think it could take any more boggling - but this stuff takes the cake - Centurion, why do these prudes and " moral guardians" titter so? Fer Gawd's sakes, as if chidren are idiots - I am 50 and I know kids of 7, yes SEVEN, who have a finer and more sophisticated understanding of the dilemmas of modern life than ol' me at times !!! Children are exposed to far worse obscenities and horror daily, even hourly - what about the horrors of a normal playground, where viciousness is refined to a degree even unthought of by the CIA and KGB....and parents who harm their children by being so anal they won't even smile at jokes? This is what harms children, and not a fine book such as this ---- go live in the Tanami Desert or sit on a pole if you want to get closer to your god -- just leave us all alone..
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whitelephant:
27 Aug 2008 3:15:41pm
Thelonenut
Repent! my son, Repent! thou art vile and salacious-have you no care for the words you write? when you pen that evil word a..l.
Do you not realise that a child may read this-Oh! evil and disgusting one! May a pox dwell upon your house forever-may your first second nay even your third born burn in the fires of hades. Stop! stop! it now-before it is too late.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
faholo:
27 Aug 2008 4:40:33pm
whiteelephant you scare me. What thelonenut meant was that a lot of pain can be caused by a non-attentive parent.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
LadyMeerkat:
28 Aug 2008 10:25:29am
[giggles @ whitelephant]
I might pop over to Borders later to check it out. It sounds like this is a picture book aimed at older CHILDREN 8+ since it deals with a controversial, historical issue. Younger kids would get something out of it as well but with PG to explain and answer questions.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Pete:
27 Aug 2008 3:30:24pm
Today's children can readily access demonstrations of violence and bigotry on YouTube, Xbox, or hip hop downloaded to their mobile phones. But in these media there is rarely interpretation or balance.
Maybe true, however, YouTube videos are restricted by age, its illegal to sell MA rated videogames to those under 15 (no enforceable laws about the sale of books), and the kids who listen to hip hop on their mobiles irritate the hell out of me, so I don't really care.
And Xbox games are renowned for their lack of direction, thought or anysort of story. Go to Nintendo or Sony and you get normally excellent story lines, and if not that, its low impact stuff.
Also, don't you think that pornography has a worse impact than say hip hop? Just maybe? And dont act like its not a big problem. Kids at my school talk openly and at length about pornography. Seeing a guy in a helmet being shot by a laser and dropping to the ground is considerably better for your kids than pornography. While your point is valid, your reasoning is... well, not so much.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pyce:
28 Aug 2008 7:30:26am
1. There's a difference between nudity and pornography and many shades of grey in both categories.
2. I believe that nudity and/or sex in movies (as opposed to pornography) is far more acceptable that violence. Even pornography is better than violence in my eyes.
Again, shades of grey in everything.
Ultimately I'm happy for my children to grow up and have responsible and consensual sex but I'm definitely not happy for them to grow up committing acts of violence.
I'm always concerned to see people say (and there are plenty out there) that violence is OK but nudity / sex is not - I wonder what thought process led them to that decision. What damage do they think pornography does that is worse than normalising violence?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gone with the windy:
27 Aug 2008 3:43:08pm
What's far more inappropriate to children is marketing happy meals to them with the free 'Dark Knight' toys when the film is rated beyond their reach.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Janette Arnold-Collins:
27 Aug 2008 4:00:05pm
Has anyone read "The Rabbits". John Marsden and Shaun Tan . A Winner of the Childrens Book Council of Australia, Picture Book of the year Award, a few years ago. Also considered controversial. it too dealt with the delicate issues in Australia's, profoundly explored and poignantly presented.
I have not read the current book being discussed, but all the fuss has certainly got my attention and I wil be looking for it at the book store. It seems to have arroused people's passion and stirred them into debate. Is this not an important aspect of societies responsibility to self assess and move forward with the aim to improve the world the all live in?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
LadyMeerkat:
28 Aug 2008 10:32:04am
Yes and again controversy because there is the assumption that because it's a picture book it's for younger readers. A top notch volume I might add.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
faholo:
27 Aug 2008 4:32:05pm
You may have quessed from faholo am a christian (faith hope love). It deeply distresses me that yet again people are censoring way too much.
TV and books are forms or entertainment, escapism if you need it. As a parent you have the duty to use every chance you have to openly discuss issues with your children. This means you have to take the time to read what they are reading watch what they are watching.
Do my children swear, not in front of me. I have tried along the way to set some standards of acceptable behavior set some boundaries. Does this mean I am racing out to buy this book - honestly I dont know. I will confess that the whole family enjoyed reading the Harry Potter series (because they were entertaining) none of us have any interest in witchcraft or think that witchcraft is an acceptable choice for us.
the Bible is in parts violent and definately has adult themes yet hopefully it will remain of focus for all of us. Do I struggle wth parts of the Bible yes yet I keep reading because I want to be a better person, a better christian and only a broad knowledge (ie reading stacks and stacks of books) and life experience can (I believe) provide this.
Keep reading, keep giving a wide variety of books as presents and above all get out there with your children and visit the local libraries and let them choose some books.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Trish:
28 Aug 2008 5:59:21am
Faholo, I'm not a Christian, but I agree with the views you express. It's good to see a viewpoint from someone identifying themselves with a religion who presents a rational, well thought out argument instead of sounding as if they're from the lunatic fringe.
I suppose the same applies to lots of the people posting here and elsewhere and joining radio phone-ins, whether greenies or political animals of any persuasion - those with a drum to beat tend to froth at the mouth as they beat it.
Or maybe it's just that I identify with your viewpoint, so you sound sensible and well balanced!!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Ninjawookie:
27 Aug 2008 6:02:12pm
I would assume parents who bought this for their children would read the book to them. If they object to what it is the book is about then they could always just not buy it.
Of course they could also discuss with their child what the book is about, and from what I've read of this article should be discussed at some point anyway.
I'm sure the books intentions are far removed from more damaging forms of media like Today Tonight. Which would reach a wider number of people of all ages anyway.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
mikej:
27 Aug 2008 6:04:49pm
have any of you actually read the book??no?? yet some are trying to force their moralistic holier than thou wowser views on others. the religists and moralists have lost whatever credibility they once had. like greer their screeching has become tiresome. go read the book before passing judgement. maybe the blinded will see again.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Richard L:
27 Aug 2008 10:05:47pm
May I add my thanks to Kate Eltham for a cogent argument in favour of freedom. She's right: it's up to parents to monitor their children and give them the right advice. Rarely should this consist of 'Don't read THAT book, it's filth'. The feedback on her opinion piece, incidentally, illustrates the chief problem we have today: that we are overrun by one-eyed moralists.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Matt Ottley:
27 Aug 2008 11:13:07pm
This has always been an controversal subject. From personal experience I encountered serious emotional and psychological problems within my daughter,whom whilst still in grade one knew all the parts of speech,has an exceptionally High IQ,and tried to attempt suidide as a result of being forced by her teacher to read a book simply for grade one's.A very simple picture and word book about "The Cat." Before school she was not only reading,understanding but enjoying such books as "Little Women","Gone with the wind""Histoyy,and language books",Anything she could get her hands on to read,such was her passion for the thirst of knowledge she found personally stimulating.Including "Current Affairs,"Cultural issues",she even was able to read as well as understand "The Complete Set of the Enclyopedia Briticanica",and asked if they were bringing out "great works of the Eastern world".Thankfully I was able to immediately phone a child psychologist whom over the telephone assisted me towards diffusing her problem as from my discription of my daughter's actions,s the very serious nature and intent she had in carrying out her intentions, if she had to go back to school.This child psychologist immediately informed me that the problem lied with her teacher at school in keeping her down at grade one level when her IQ was really that of university standard.I personally trusted this child psychologist advice telling my daughter "she no-longer had to go back to that school,having to search for a school which allowed for the socialisation emotionally for her age yet accept her intelligence was much higher of university standards.I am very grateful today I followed this child psocologists advice for I still have a living daughter,but a daughter in which I am very proud of my daughter today,whom is now a top ranking Journalist.She has wanted to be a Journalist since the age of three and so determined to become one no-matter what.But things could have turned out quite disasteiously if I had not had the help of a very professional child psychologist to call upon for help.This was some fourty years ago.Our youths today are much more able to understand adult and Global issues much more than many adults or our Educational system believes.Her whole childhood life including being a teenager she forever complained that everything she was or had to partake in to quote my daughter's own words-"Mum all I ever get is silly stuff for babies".I see nothing wrong if the child concerned is emotionally and mentally mature enough to truly understand what they are reading or wish to read.Not once did my daughter ever want to read anything in regards to anything which could or would be harmful.I as her parent because of her intelligence had extra responsibility towards guiding her away from improper reading or books,as well as having the extremely difficult job of educating her teachers about her intel
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Candice:
28 Aug 2008 11:47:22am
I think that children should be allowed to read whatever they want. i am 18 and my parents have never said i couldnt read something. ive read almost everything from historical romance to veterinary text books, to sci-fi books. i love reading, i presume as a result of never being told no. my brother on the other hand has to be force to read the book his english teacher wants him to read. but if left to his own devices he reads pokemon or quentaris books but thats about all. he has never been told 'no you cant read that' but he had problems in year 2 & 3 where the teacher had favourites and did not care that the rest of her class could not read. my brother is now 16 and still has alot of trouble reading.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
