PEN's Children's/Young Adult Book Authors Committee weighs in on the many forms of censorship—be it from schools, libraries, and especially self-censorship in the process of writing. Please join the discussion by reading the following essays and posting your comments.

PEN Member Essays on Censorship

A Fahrenheit 450 Story
by Robert Lipsyte

And Yet...
by Mary Ann Hoberman

Dracula Is a Pain in the Neck and So Is “Self-censorship"
by Elizabeth Levy

You Sir/Madam are the enemy of confusion evreywhree!

I just finished reading The Higher Power of Lucky, and as a once girl, a now-very-grown-up-woman, an author smitten with Lucky's sparkling, brilliantly original story, I'm here to tell you that this is one of the most charming, affecting children's books I've inhabited in this knot-tied world.

The Newbery judges are to be celebrated, the nay-sayers derided and ignored by now. Enough has already been said about the Body Part Word; rather, we should gather our time and rants to shower Susan Patron with glorious praise for her true work of art. And to Matt Phelan for its lovely completion.

What thought-provoking essays, all three, and what wonderful comments! I can't tell you how many times I've said I don't self-censor--and then have pulled back a little to say that when a character of mine would use a "bad" word, I let him or her use it when I'm drafting the book, but later, I look at it more closely to make sure it's absolutely necessary and that there's no other word that would do. If that's self-censorship, I'm guilty. I try to be guided by the rule that sex, violence, and profanity should never be gratuitous in fiction, regardless of whether it's for adults, YAs, or young kids, and that helps. But when I was starting out, I used to suggest to teachers that they not force any child to participate in a discussion of my books about vampires and other occult creatures, and I used to keep my book ANNIE ON MY MIND (before it had a number of challenges, one leading to a First Amendment lawsuit--which we won) away from gigs involving young kids. Censorship makes me mad, although I try to respect the sensibilities of the genuinely concerned (albeit I think misguided) censors--and self-censorship can be artistically dishonest. But the line between being sensitive to the needs and feelings of others and the need to be honest is sometimes hard to see.

These are wonderful essays, especially in the graceful way they acknowledge the complexities of censorship. As a writer, I believe in being truthful, even if it might cause trouble. But as a parent, I believe there IS such a thing as age-appropriate content, and it's one of the rights and responsibilities of parenthood to decide that for your own child. But here's the catch: not for someone else's. That, to me, is the fundamental problem with censorship: the assumption that we know what's best for someone else.

I think both censorship and self-censorship really stem from fear, and until we understand the source of that fear, it may be hard to make much headway against censorship. So many people think that knowledge--especially knowledge that is sexual or violent--is harmful for children and teens. Robie Harris told a great story during a speech at the Connecticut Book Fair about a very young child (8?) who had used Robie's oft-challenged book, "It's Perfectly Normal," to show her mother that she was being abused by a relative. During the trial, the judge commented that Robie's book was the hero of the case, because it gave the child a way to tell what had happened to her. Robie rightly pointed out that there were other heroes: the child, for her courage in speaking, and the mother, for her willingness to listen.

I love this story. I think people erroneously believe that censorship will protect children, when very often, knowledge is what will protect them.

All three of these essays are really fantastic! They are thought-provoking, deeply revealing and a great glimpse into each authors' personal process. Thank you for sharing them.

Linnea is also one of the few I saw who actually read the book to the intended audience.

Here's a letter (unpublished to date) that a couple of my fourth graders wrote to the NY Times. (I suggested it to the class after reading them the editorial, but sort of forgot about it and was amazed that these two felt so strongly about it that they spent their recess composing the letter):

Dear Editor,

Our teacher read to us a bit of the book, The Higher Power of Lucky, and when she asked us what was wrong only one person knew it was about the word scrotum and the rest of us had ideas that had nothing to do with the word. We were appalled to hear that some librarians had banned the book from their libraries just because of some old word. Our teacher only read us a little bit of the book, but we thought it sounded very good and do not agree with people who banned the book.

Sincerely,

M and H

PS For anyone interested in more from a fourth grade teacher's perspective, I wrote a blog post focusing on the spiraling sensationalism (http://medinger.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/my-scrotum-week/) and one on self-censorship (http://medinger.wordpress.com/
2007/02/18/what-i-do-with-discomforting-words-scrotum-not-being-one-of-them/).

ALL HUMAN RIGHTS ARE FRAUD.fIRST GLOBALLY SUPPRESSED WRITER

Many thanks to Fran Manushkin and Susan Kuklin for posting these three fine essays.

These past weeks have been full of surprises and challenges, but I've felt bolstered every day by the groundswell of support from PEN, ALSC, and many writers and librarians. I also now know quite a few good scrotum jokes.

Mary Ann Hoberman and Doris Orgel, you are wonderful and I am deeply grateful to you both.

Susan Patron

After finishing "The Hollywood Writers' Wars" I conferred with Knopf lawyers for several days to make sure I had not included anything for which I could be sued. I had previously taken out negative references to Ronald Reagan and Adolf Menjou. One night, at about ten P. M., my doorbell rang. It was a summons server. I was being sued for $4,000,000 by a woman named Patsy who, I wrote, had been an alcoholic in 1932.This was fifty years later. I never would have thought this could be a problem. But problem it was. Knopf informed me that I had to get my own lawyer. I obtained a marvelous lawyer, Ben Zalman. "What are you so nervous about," he teased me. "Do you have four million dollars?" I informed him that I didn't even have $4000 and was worried about paying him. I learned that Patsy would have to prove:1) that it was untrue, 2) that it had injured her career. 3) malice had been intended.We settled for one dollar and a case of scotch. Would I have omitted the statement if a suit had been predicted? Probably no. But I have been much more careful since then. And so self-censorship goes.

Those folk who would scratch the word scrotum,
Plus the books and the authors who wrote 'em,
Defeat their intention
Each time that they mention
The word - and the media quote 'em!

On February 28th, there was a fine interview on NPR's TALK OF THE NATION with Susan Patron, author of THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY. She explains exactly why she used the word, "scrotum," and also responds to a few phone calls from listeners. The interview lasts 17 minutes.

You can find it here:www.npr.org

Not since Sendak's little Mickey (In the Night Kitchen) committed "full frontal nudity" has there been an outpouring of impassioned protests and counter-protests like the furor over the word "scrotum" in Susan Patron's wonderful Newbery winning novel, The Higher Power of Lucky. I spent hours plowing through reams of messages to a net link I subscribe to. Many expressed outrage that a book with such a word in it should be available to third- and fourth-graders; others were distressed that librarians should have to face hordes of angry parents wanting it removed from the shelves; but the majority of messages "preached to the choir" about this deplorable censorship attempt menacing our First Amendment and cherished civil liberties. I also read numerous newspaper and journal articles mostly dwelling on the wrongs of censorship.

I'm wholeheartedly against censorship myself (not just because a book of mine was once banned from libraries in St. Petersburg, Florida, thanks to a local paper condemning as gratuitous a "flasher" scene the book contains for which I thought I had good reason). Nevertheless, I grew increasingly frustrated by the single-minded focus on "scrotum," which seems to me sensationalized, and maintained at the expense of the giving this astonishing novel the consideration it deserves. Of the countless net-link posts I read, only ONE (from Linnea Hendrickson on CCBC) even mentioned the strong writerly justification for the so-hotly-debated word: namely, that it underlines, and is in perfect keeping with two of "the book's powerful themes: the absent father and meaning of parenting." I want to add that it's exactly the sort of word that would arouse 10-year-old Lucky's interest. She's a budding scientist, after all. Here's how Brigitte (as near perfect a mother substitute as there can be, and one who won't desert her as Lucky had feared) explains it to what ought to be everyone's satisfaction at the end: "It is a little sack of the man or the animal which has in it the sperm to make a baby." Yes, and the "little sack" is life affirming. So is using the correct, scientific word for it. And so is this entire little (in length only), entertaining, truthful, admirably crafted book.

I’m writing a mid-grade novel now with characters who are as true and real as Liz Levy and her brother - and face the same gatekeepers who are waiting to point fingers and disinvite me from their hallowed halls. Will I be more careful now about what I say, now that I am more aware of the consequences? I’d like to think I’d move bravely forward in the name of truth, but only time and painful days of writing will tell. Pitifully, I still want to be liked, after all these years, and I’m too old to weave and bob to avoid the pointing finger, so wish me luck!