Did you get a chance to check the source Marrin used?

Also—Jean Mendoza and I worked together on an article in which we discussed the Seattle speech and BROTHER EAGLE SISTER SKY. You can find the article (it is free, online) by searching with “examining multicultural picture books” (the first four words in the title).

Anyway, I see Chief Seattle’s “speech” has already been covered. I haven’t read “Years of Dust” yet, but very much want to now. As soon as I finish “Charles & Emma”

And yes, it really is Peck’s political views that tainted the rest of the book for me. But those chapters wrenched me out of Grandma Dowdel’s world – made me step back and say “whoa, that’s really tacky”, and worry that all the kids reading it will think that Indians are all one with nature (and that’s their only religion! – that “her church was the sighing forest” etc. really shortchanges Native cultures), and that they’re all gone and it’s ok to use their bones however – and that ruined the whole flow of the story. Even if it all *was* authentic for Grandma D. in 1950′s IL, and therefore fine historical fiction.

We can clearly see that when we look at the other end of the political spectrum. They’re wrong so it’s easy to dismiss what they hold as morally right. But there is a mirror effect: they are looking back at us, thinking we are the misguided, unenlightened ones. What each of us holds as self-evident truths are not necessarily held in common with other readers.

One of the great strengths of liberal thought is the democracy effect, that it seeks greater diversity in these self-evident truths, allowing for the emergence of historically undervalued viewpoints to have a spot at the table. But, as always, the challenge remains to–not agree necessarily with each viewpoint–but allow them a place at the table.

So I bring up the Peck-Myracle comparison to illustrate these points on a concrete level. There are no conservative Christian characters in LUV YA BUNCHES. This book has nothing to do with them. They have no right to have this book display their sensibilities. The world doesn’t revolve around them. But similarly, there are are no Indian characters in A SEASON OF GIFTS and this book doesn’t revolve around them either. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be discussing these issues, but I can’t make literary judgements on the basis of what I find to be inherently political beliefs.

So much for shutting up!

Katherine Paterson says, “When our chief goal is not to offend someone, we are not likely to write a book that will deeply affect anyone.”

If you couple that with the famous collection development mantra–There should be something in your library to offend everybody–then you can clearly see that since the Newbery canon is all about picking books that deeply affect someone then it stands to reason that they will deeply offend, too. In fact, we might also say that there should be something in the Newbery canon to offend everybody.

Okay, I’m playing the provacateur here again. What do you think?

1. Debbie, thanks for posting the link to the Chief Seattle stuff. This quote is from the letter rather than the speech. My copy of YEARS OF DUST is at school, and I’d like to see how he cites his source before further comment. It appears likely that these texts have been reconstructed, embellished, and/or fabricated. It’s more common than you might think. For example, Patrick Henry’s “If this be treason” and “Give me libery or give me death” speeches.

2. Nina, you are right that the quote does not really address this dilemma very squarely. Cole is talking about writers, and we are talking about readers, albeit *gatekeeper* readers that provide some of the pressure that Cole feels. We as gatekeepers want to shape young readers and for this we need books that serve certain political ends and cultural values, namely *our* ends and values.

As I previously alluded, I think Wendy unwittingly illustrates this point perfectly on her blog with her latest post on A SEASON OF GIFTS and a previous one about LUV YA BUNCHES. You’ll remember that Scholastic yanked the book because of, in large part, the lesbian moms. Apparently, some people would be offended, thinking this topic inappropriate for children. And who might these people be? The nefarious religious right, of course, who believes it has a monopoly on The Truth just as fervently as the liberal left does. Just as there is no acknowledgement of an Indian viewpoint in A SEASON OF GIFTS so, too, is there no acknowledgement of a contrary viewpoint on lesbian moms in LUV YA BUNCHES–or maybe Myracle should have just left them out altogether since they are not–as Wendy described the Indian bones–important, valuable, organic, or necessary (well, politically, yes, but not so much from a literary viewpoint). Now I’m not advocating for this kind of inclusion/exclusion, but rather the opposite. What I *am* saying is that you have to be consistent–you can’t say the worldview of the Native American child is more important than that of the conservative Christian child–otherwise you’re just determining literary merit based on your political ideology. You can’t say this book presents abortion in a postive light therefore it is a bad book, that book presents gay marriage in a negative light therefore it is a bad book. Those are political judgments, not literary ones. I know this is overly simplistic, but I think it makes the point . . .

3. I apologize in advance for the offense that this post may cause. Going to shut up now!