The Misfits, by James Howe

This was awesome - it took me right back to my own awkward days of middle-school existence. Howe has a way with words that makes it seem like the reader is right there among the characters. Perhaps the reader IS the fifth member of the Gang of Five? Just a thought. At first the language bothered me, "goes" rather than "said" and the word "like" in like almost like every like sentence, but as I read on I began to think of the audience this book speaks to, and I realized - this language is just like the language that these characters would use. A middle-school or high-school-aged individual would be able to really relate to the dialogue in the book.

I think that this book has the power to speak directly to the prejudices and stereotypes that are reflected in schools, not only among students - but among teachers as well. If you have ever been present in the "teacher's lounge" you know what I'm talking about. In the book we see the transformation that the teacher, Ms. Wyman makes: from a closed-minded "from the books" teacher, into one who is accepting and supportive of the diverse ideas of her students. She decides to make a conscious effort to change herself, which leads to the rise of the No-Name Party and the eventual change of the entire school body.

Another powerful message the book holds, is the power of "free speech" - being able to vocalize what you know is right can make all the difference. My sisters are currently in high-school (important to add - at a very conservative, rural high-school), and as part of their Freshman English class, the entire class now reads the book The Misfits, and orchestrate a "No-Name Campaign" of their own. The book had a massive impact on them, I never realize where their newly found congressional motivation stemmed from until NOW when I read the book for myself. It can spark an interest in democratic politics, and can create a "call for action" among students. This is just what we need! We need students who are willing to speak-up for themselves, and what they KNOW can help create change within the school.

As far as controversy is concerned, the book portrays themes of adolescent hormones, homosexuality, democratic-activism, and non-conformist thinking. Um, the last I checked all of these things are "part of middle-school" and "creating your identity." I don't think that it is fair that this (or any book really) has been labeled as "controversial" because controversy is constructed - it's ambiguous.

P.S. On the news a couple days ago, I saw that - according to the tabulation of students who reported being bullied, or bullying others, on a survey conducted in accordance with Iowa's anti-bullying bill - "bullying" has decreased from 23% of students to 13%. It would be interesting to know when the original data was collected. Could it be a reflection of Howe's book being used in high-schools, or an increased awareness of the problem? Good news anyway, for those of us who are ready for a change on the issue.

Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit, by Joel Chandler Harris

I'll just come right out and say it, the controversy surrounding this classic piece of American literature is racism. But when making assumptions like this, one must keep in mind the era that these stories were written and published, the experiences of the author, and the message the book is may be trying to spread.

First, Harris wrote the Uncle Remus stories in the early twentieth century, during the apex of segregation and slavery in the South. The story is told and narrated in the accurate African-American Southern dialect of the time, and the "racial slurs" used in the story did not become "slurs" until we socialized them as such.

Second, Harris, although White, was extremely interested in African-American folklore and story-telling. He worked on a plantation and had the opportunity to socialize, listen, and learn from the African-American slaves that also worked there.

Third, the themes represented within the community of animals have been viewed as similar to that of the early American plantation. I do not feel that the message was meant to be racist when Harris created the Uncle Remus characters, but rather a refection of what was going on in the South at the time.

My dad read this book to me when I was very little and I did not realize that it had any sort of "negative" racial message at all, in fact I enjoyed hearing my dad read with the southern accent, it was engaging and different. It wasn't until I got a bit older (seventh grade maybe) and I found the book on the bookshelf, remembering my fondness of it, that I opened it up and was appalled by the racial slurs and undertones. I couldn't believe that this had been among my favorites to hear as a child. This is interesting to think about: as we develop the ability to decide "what is racist" for ourselves, we also develop the ability to decide "whether we agree with it."

The House That Crack Built, by Clark Taylor

Whew! That was an oddity of book - I feel a little unsettled, I NEVER thought I would be reading a children's book about crack. Taylor took the nursery rhyme, "The House that Jack Built," and morphed it to encompass the story of how a crack house tore down an entire community. The abstract people make them seem In the end there is hope for CHANGE.

Controversial and "unfamiliar" maybe, but the truth of the matter is, that in many schools around the country where there is an overwhelming population of children who are directly impacted by drug use/abuse, whether it be within their peer group, their families, or their community. No matter how much we may wish to pass off children as "innocents" their lives are complex and difficult too. Books like these help children understand that they are not alone.

This book is "recommended" for ages 4-8. Where this book may seem appropriate for some school audiences, I do not see how it would ever be appropriate to read in a conservative, rural elementary school, like that which I attended as a child. I imagine the uproar from parents would likely lead to a teacher's termination - however justified the reading may have seemed. With a book like this, you need to pick-and choose your audience, as introducing a classroom of kindergartners to the perils of crack-cocaine addiction may not be the best of approaches in a "home-town" school-setting.

In the Night Kitchen, by Mauice Sendak

This is another wonderful, imaginative book by Sendak. The way Sendak manipulates the story and illustrations to reflect a young child's "experiences in the night kitchen," is dream-like and surreal - I don't know if I was fully able to experience the story because of my lack of "a-child's-imagination."

I just want to say one thing about the controversy surrounding this book, "when WE relay our own negative feelings and negative connotations of 'private parts,' genders, and sexuality to children, we are only instilling them with our own interpretations, and we are depriving them of the ability to make important decisions on their own." I guess what I'm trying to say, is that, in a child's mind, there is nothing wrong with this book until we tell them there is. Anyhow, from a literal perspective, the boy needed to take his clothes off to get into the cake batter, it makes perfect sense.

Okay, one more thing . . . Everyone is so caught up in the nakedness, the religious intonation has been missed, HA! What's up with that?

Where the Wild Things Are, by Mauice Sendak

Oh, memories . . . this book was a favorite during my childhood. I remember when my dad would scare me with his bestial dramatic re-enactment of the wild rumpus!! He would hold the book open above his head, flipping slowly through each wordless page, while jumping around crazily, and grunting, making beat-box noises to the rhythm of the rumpus. Hilarious, I wonder if he remembers as well as I do?

I remember feeling sad for Max (the boy in the story) when he sent to bed for casuing "mischief of one kind . . . or another." The illustration of Max in his wolf suit holding a fork to "stab" his pet dog, and the shadow of this action reflected on the wall of the room, is still vivid in my memories of the book. I remember thinking, "Max is a bad boy!"

Even as a child I was able to recognize that Max was a "disturbed child," but was he really? Or is this how children are? Imaginative play is REAL and it is a part of their everyday lives. Reflecting the violence of the world in imaginative play, is part of developing an understanding of the world. For instance, when I got angry I remember going to my "deer stand" (below the picnic table) and gazing through the imaginary scope of my rifle to aim and kill the songbirds at my mom's bird feeder on the back porch. It really made her furious, but it was my way of using imaginative play to reflect "violent" feelings and emotions.

When these themes (such as Max pointing the fork downward to "stab" his dog) become personified in children's literature, it is not surprising that some will feel as if the book was published as a personal assault or something. Despite their opposition of good thought provoking literature, and their attempts to "ban" such "controversial" themes in children's literature, these conservatives cannot argue with the fact that children love the controversy! Books with "controversial" characters, topics, and themes are often times very relatable and intriguing for them - there's no getting away.

One last thought: the "Where the Wild Things Are" movie made think the about the book in a completely different way. I'm not sure if I was satisfied, it seems like the movie had the potential to be "exciting" and "captivating" but really it just depressed me. For all of these years I had thought of Max as a free spirit, but I came to find out (though the movie) that Max was a deeply depressed, lonely, and socially unadjusted child.

Hiroshima, No Pika, by Toshi Maruki

Imagine what it would be like to come to consciousness (or die) amidst the destruction and wreckage that is documented in the above photograph . . . This is on of many aerial photographs taken of Hiroshima after the United States government decided that, to drop an atomic bomb on the city, was the only way to end WWII.


This book has been a topic of debate among "war zealots" since the book was published in America. The debate surrounds the story that is told through the perspective of a seven-year Japanese girl living in Hiroshima on the day that the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on the unsuspecting city of civilians. The imagery created through the text is reflected in the abstracted images of the dead and suffering women, men, and children who have been burned and charred by the "flash." Some of the images of humans are unclothed (see the cover illustration), likely because their clothing has turned to ash from the immense heat of the atomic bomb. The story is rampant with the somber emotions and feelings of loss and destruction, it is unlike any children's picture book I have ever read. This book opened my eyes to the "other side," and that perhaps, was the authors very intention.

The opposition feels that, the story is one-sided and fails to mention other important aspects of WWII, where the Japanese are the primary protagonists in the violence that occurred during the was.

I respect the opinions of others who may feel that the story is an "inaccurate" portrayal of WWII for American children, however I HAVE TO politely disagree with this closed-minded way of thinking. This is why: American children, and children around the world, are deprived of the option to decide (USING MULTIPLE VANTAGE POINTS) how to interpret historical or cultural events and the associated emotions for themselves. I feel the power of analysis and interpretation is an essential aspect of learning to think for oneself. When people say things like, "this book is too graphic and depressing for children," or "this book sends an anti-American message," they are only harboring resentment, anger, and reinforcing their own insecurities about the treachery that occurred on that day in our history. They need to get over it, there are plenty of books that tell the story from a strictly American perspective. Why is it that our culture is so egotistic that we are uncomfortable showing empathy for "others" - "others" that have been affected and impacted by OUR own acts of violence?

I'm sure many will disagree with the viewpoints I presented in this interpretation - "WHATEVER!" I FIRMLY BELIEVE, that If we limit to our children to reading stories that are always told through the American nationalist perspective - as many of them are, especially in the public school system - then we are limiting their ability to develop into open-minded,INDIVIDUAL who are able to develop unique interpretations of what they read based on all viewpoints and perspectives.