|
CC SOUNDS OFF
Chris Crutcher is famous for his realistic fiction and unyielding honesty. He's also famous for speaking his mind. These SOUND OFF sections will explore Crutcher's opinions on many controversial issues.
MASTURBATION HAPPENS New!
GALESBURG HIGH DIPLOMA'S DENIED GOOD VS EVIL
GAY CHARACTERS IN YA FICTION
THE POLITICS OF WAR
NOT IN MY &%$#*ING MEDIA CENTER ("SELECTIVE" CENSORSHIP)
HARPER LEE'S LEGACY
GIVE A PISSED OFF BOY A GUN
|
|
|
Masturbation Happens
|
|
On December 26, 2007 a teacher from a Catholic middle school posted a comment on a popular educators' listserv about not being able to use Sherman Alexie's book, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian with her 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade gifted language art students.
"There is NO WAY I can have that book in my room," she said. "The language, the passage about masturbation—I cannot have that book in my room. What age do you think that book would be for and who would you recommend it to?? As librarians, can you recommend books with that kind of content in good conscience? I am no prude, I know what the kids read on their own, and really I have no problems with that (Gossip Girl and the like). My question is why do authors do that when they know that kind of content eliminates a portion of their audience?"
This is CC's response:
This comment on your listserv was sent to me by a number of folks and I'm afraid I have to respond. It will give me something to do while procrastinating before deciding how to write my next masturbation scene.
The writer of this post says she is not a prude. Sorry XXXX, you're a prude. Kids masturbate. They think about it. They talk about it. In graphic terms. When I started working as a child abuse and neglect family therapist back in the early eighties, one quick conclusion I came to was that until we are willing and able to talk openly about sex in this culture - healthy sex and sexual thought - we will never be capable of talking about sex abuse. I swear sometimes I'm embarrassed to live in a culture that can't talk about true things because someone might be offended. When that perspective comes from within our educational culture, I'm even more embarrassed. A story like Sherman's mirrors a life; a whole life, not just the whitewashed parts of a life. A young reader doesn't come away from that story thinking about masturbation. He or she comes away thinking about loneliness and friendship and meanness; how to avoid meanness and how to be less mean. In that story a young man finds his way against all odds. And he whacks off while doing it. Big deal. Come on, people.
Alex Flinn says she considers long and hard before putting a scene in a book that might be offensive. I love Alex's books. I think highly of her as a writer. But let it be known, if it isn't already, that I don't consider for a second whether someone will be offended by a scene. I consider whether it's real, or if it seems real to me. This pandering to adult "sensibilities" is part of what keeps YA fiction from being considered real fiction. Someone gasps and grasps his or her chest at the mention of MASTURBATION and folks seem to think the rest of us need to recoil too.
For years kids - teenagers - came into my office to say how unheard they felt by the adults in their lives; parents and teachers. We're either able to hear about their lives in their native tongue, or we're not. When we're not, they stop talking to us. Who can blame them? There isn't a teacher out there who couldn't say, "There are scenes in this book that make me uneasy. They might make you uneasy too. Maybe we should talk about why we feel uneasy. Then we can talk about the book."
I wouldn't give Sherman's book to just any fifth grader either, because it would be beyond many of them, but I'd sure as hell give it to an eighth grader. And I'd let any kid who wanted to read it, read it. If it's beyond them, they'll say so. Or they'll put it down.
And I have to tell you, I don't buy the Catholic argument. I've had some of the best discussions in my long string of school presentations in Catholic middle and high schools. There are a whole bunch of Catholic teachers and Jesuits who aren't one bit afraid of talking about real things in kids' lives. I was given the St. Katharine Drexel Award by the Catholic Library Association after writing about abortion and masturbation and sex abuse. There's no Catholic shroud to hide behind here.
This censorship thing has gotten out of hand because people who understand intellectual freedom are less willing to stand up for it, and because people who truly understand the nature of adolescence and pre-adolescence have become unwilling to speak up. The dis-ease we feel dealing with kids is exactly the reason to deal with the real stuff.
Chris Crutcher
|
|
|
This is in response to a recent media report regarding five students from Galesburg High School in Galesburg, Illinois, who were refused their high school diplomas and also refused entry into their Project Graduation party which followed the commencement ceremony. The students were told they would receive their diplomas only after completing eight hours apiece of community service for the school district.
I have some advice for the five seniors from Galesburg High School whose diplomas were withheld until they complete eight hours of “community service” for the school district: Refuse to perform one second of community service and decline your diploma unless it comes with an apology.
It’s hard to know where to begin to register my astonishment at the actions of the powers- that-be at Galesburg High. Do I shake my head in amazement that they would hold these graduates responsible for the actions of others, whether they be family or not? Do I hide my disgust at the arrogance of deciding it’s more important to have “dignity and honor” restored to their graduation ceremony, than to allow friends and family members some measure of celebration at the sound of their loved ones’ names? Do I bow my head at the silence of these students’ classmates and teachers in the face of such authoritarian idiocy? I understand that, by report, last year’s commencement got a little wild, but even the most junior of lawmakers in this country know it’s bad policy to create law based on passions coming out of one incident.
There may or may not be extenuating circumstances around this incident, but it’s hard to imagine the scenario in which the graduates on the stage were to blame. Their school officials failed them, pure and simple. I’m hoping there was an unreported outcry from teachers and fellow students, so I don’t have to believe those people failed them also.
When I hear officials say, “Race has nothing to do with it,” I immediately wonder what race has to do with it. When I read that all the kids whose diplomas were withheld were non-white and that there were other celebrations in the audience that were considered “within the rules,” and that it was an arbitrary decision by the administration’s crowd monitors as to who went over the line and who didn’t, I wondered again what race has to do with it. It may be totally coincidental – anything’s possible – and it may be totally coincidental that (by the school’s own report) in a school with approximately fourteen percent African-American population and five percent Latino population, the teaching faculty is ninety-five percent white. But for me to feel comfortable that this isn’t racial, I would need to hear the outrage of some percentage of those teachers and some percentage of those white students. Hey, call me a child of the sixties, but if this incident had happened at my high school, the principal would be staring at a pile of returned diplomas. I know of no act of heroism that doesn’t include standing up for yourself; standing up for who you are and what you believe in. Now would be a good time.
Our public schools don’t belong to administrators. They belong to the people of the community. I’ve worked in public schools, my books are used in public schools; I have been a believer that if we are to save education in this country it will be through our public schools. But responses like those of the powers at Galesburg High are shameful, and it gets harder and harder to stand up for public education in the face of this kind of administrative bravura.
Race or no race, here’s what I say to the five recent graduates of Galesburg High School. You graduated; your diploma is ornamental. It wasn’t you or your families who diminished your graduation ceremony, it was the officials of your school. If I can get your addresses I will send you each a copy of my last book and my next book, and I will contact as many authors as I know, most of them far more accomplished than I, and ask them to do the same and we will fill your homes with ornaments that represent true education.
Chris Crutcher
|
|
GOOD VS EVIL
Isabella posted this thoughtful letter on Crutcher's Guestbook on June 10, 2005. His complete response is posted right below it. Length barriers in the Guestbook program would not allow for the full text to be posted there.
ISABELLA'S LETTER:
I loved your new book called The Sledding Hill. It made me think alot about alot of stuff. I especially loved the girl named Montana, because she was very interesting and had a lot of secret problems that she didn't tell anyone about. I also liked how Eddie was always there for his friend even after he died. I do want to ask a question about something that the character Eddie says when he is dead in the middle of the book. He ays there is not a difference between good and evil. Is this something that you believe? It didn't make sense to me when I thought about those evil men who flew those planes into the Twin Towers to kill all those innocent people. Then I thought about the people in those buildings who helped to rescue others instead of getting out fast themselves. Those people were good, I think. Do you really think there is no difference?
CRUTCHER'S RESPONSE:
I think we have to be very careful throwing those words around. When I was a little kid and my father showed me his bombing strike pictures from World War II in which he was a bomber pilot, I asked if he could tell who all he was hitting with his bombs and he said no. That was the first time I understood that there were likely little German kids down there who may not have liked Hitler one bit, who were getting killed because of my dad's bombs. Was he evil? I'll bet he was to those kids and their mothers.
There is still some argument as to whether or not it was okay to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of that same war. Many people think we could have blown one of those bombs off in an unpopulated area to show the Japanese what they would do. We killed hundreds of times more people with those bombs than were killed in the World Trade Centers, and some of them were American prisoners of war. Were we evil? Or were the Japanese evil for having bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place?
What about what's going on in Guantanamo Bay now? Are we evil for treating those people so harshly when only a few of them are proven enemy combatants, or are they evil for being connected to the mid-east?
My point is that good and bad, or good and evil, are relative terms, and they are also terms of perspective?
Here's another real dilemma: Random chance alone will tell you that there were at least a few kids who felt some relief when their relative disappeared in that bombing because of how that person was treating them. In a group of three thousand + people you will find some sexual molesters, some dangerous abusers, some wife beaters, some drug addicts, etc. etc. etc. Are the people who feel that relief evil because they are happy they don't have to be treated that way any more?
DON'T GET ME WRONG, there are all kinds of acts that I think humans shouldn't have to endure but labeling them good and evil takes the true complexity of life out of the equation. So in that regard I do think there is no good or bad. That is not to say there aren't things you want to prevent because for people you love or yourself, and it doesn't mean you shouldn't be passionate for what you stand for, but it means it's kind of lazy to simply define things as good and bad and operate out of those definitions. |
|
|
|
WHY GAY CHARACTERS IN YA LITERATURE?
A short story from Crutcher's ATHLETIC SHORTS anthology was challenged along with a story by Bruce Colville in Iowa in late 2004. Censors said the stories encouraged the forward motion of a "gay agenda." Crutcher wrote this statement in support of the teacher defending her efforts to promote tolerance.
Crutcher's Response:
Roughly ten percent of our population is gay. That means ten percent of middle schoolers are moving into that time when they discover their sexuality and those who are gay and lesbian have to face the matter-of-fact bigotry of those who feel at dis-ease with their sexual wiring.
I visit middle and high schools all over this country, about thirty of them per year, and though the only racial epithets I hear happen between same race students, as terms of endearment, I hear the word "faggot" all the time. I believe there will be a time in the not-to-distant future when we look back on this time and the ten or twenty years previous to this in the same way that we now look back on the fifties and sixties at the civil rights movement, when lawmakers were still trying to deny people of color their full rights. I don't mean that to be a political statement, but rather one regarding the atmosphere any gay or lesbian student enters in most middle and high schools, places that reflect the attitude of our country as a whole.
When I wrote "In the Time I Get," (ATHELETIC SHORTS) I had recently experienced the grief of the death of a client from AIDS. He was a guy who had been wreckless all his life; had three children he almost never saw, who were recently removed from their mother because of a drug addiction. The guy discovered what was happening and came back to work in therapy to get the kids back so they could stay together and not be farmed out into foster care. He did amazing work, went back into his own history and acknowledged every mistake and every careless action that put his kids at risk. The rest of the men in his men's group looked up to him for the courage to tell the truth. He was far more impactful to the group than I was as the therapist and group leader.
Then he came to treatment one night and announced that he had some bad news. He had AIDS. It was full-blown and all his work was for nothing because it was taking over. You could feel the other men in the group backing away from him, as he spoke. Two days later he was hospitalized and I visited him there. The disease was on fast forward. A week later I went again and when I asked how many of the other group members had been to visit him, he got tears in his eyes and said, "None. It's okay, though. They're scared." And then he gave me a line I used in the story. He said, "You know, the tough part about his disease, beside the fact that it's killing me, is that no one will touch me. I haven't been touched since I entered the hospital." Like Louie in the book, I touched him, and he cried like a baby. In another week he was gone.
The other group members were a rugged bunch. Many of them had decided he was "queer" and it was his own damn fault, though many of them had been intraveneous drug users. And they were horribly misinformed about how the disease passes, which was another reason none of them went to visit. In the end, though many of them didn't know it, they lost a hero and he died alone.
It is not okay in this country to be a bigot. It may be legal, but it's not okay.
Homosexuality is a reality in the world, and it always has been. Though there may be cases in which it's a choice, in the vast majority of cases it is not. It is simply a reality, a toss of the dice. Ask any heterosexual when they decided to be heterosexual. Most will look at you like you're crazy. They didn't decide, they just are. Same for gays. Look, we're either going to be informed in this country, or not. We're either going to be decent in this country, or we're not. We're either going to be compassionate in this country, or we're not. The biblical reference denouncing homosexuality usually goes back to Leviticus. It might be a good idea to read all of Leviticus to see what else that book of the Old Testament calls sins, and what it prescribes that we do about them.
When we turn away from tough material in stories that kids face every day in real life, we take ourselves off the short list of people to turn to. Kids would much rather we found ways to discuss those tough issues than to pretend they don't exist. They will always come up in real life, it seems to me we want to be there when they do. Kids say over and over that we don't understand. Why don't we see if we can prove them wrong once in a while.
~~ Chris Crutcher |
|
|
THE POLITICS OF WAR
On July 27, 2004 a friend sent Crutcher this right wing list of pro-war talking points. The Stotan felt moved to respond as follows. CC's comments are in BOLD.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
I would be more interested in learning the entire number of combat related killings since the beginning of the war and since the time when the war was declared over. And I'm not one bit interested in hearing just about AMERICAN dead, but all dead. And I want to know how many were soldiers and how many were civilians.
When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the
following .. FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Four years. A war in which the Japanese, Germans and Italians were joined together as one force. I would have been pretty naive to join a "part" of the war, when the enemy of one was considered the enemy of all. A little difference between a World War and the one in which we now find ourselves.
Truman... finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
Quite arguably a bad war to get into, and one that was never even called a war, but a "conflict", so we didn't have to go by the rules of a "war". I'm assuming the author of this "biased" set of questions is trying to make a case for Republicans over Democrats, rather than to look at the nature of war. He might want to pay attention to the fact that a Democrat who became President, was against "Johnson's War", and another who is trying to become President fought in it and was later against it. It seems disingenuous to look through these particular glasses.
John F. Kennedy... started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Again, a mistake. And some say he would have gotten us out of it. Others say he wouldn't. In any case, a war of containment, which couldn't be won unless it was turned into a real war, where we were willing to kill all the "enemy". This one was called a "police action". Again, we couldn't call it a war because we weren't attacked. They used the "Domino Theory" to keep this one alive. A mistake. The Russians weren't coming. And again, not a Democrat or Republican endeavor. You also might want to go back and see who was for and who was against the war, in its inception and as it went on.
Johnson... turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
And I might add that Richard Nixon was President for part of that time, and he couldn't figure out how to get out of the quagmire either, and in the end declared "a job well done" and got out, leaving the place in chaos, leaving the entire Hmong population, among others, who had supported us open to slaughter. Again, not a Republican or Democrat thing.... but more a testiment to "wars" we shouln't be fighting.
Clinton... went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
And the point is? Is there oil in Bosnia? Is there a difference between going where there's oil and where there is "ethnic cleansing"? Saddaam may have been a bad guy, who killed a lot of people, but he was seven on a scale of ten among leaders who killed people. No oil, and he doesn't blip our radar. What started out as a "war on terrorism," turned into "Free Iraq" because the administration thinks it can change the name of something and thereby change the nature of something.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ... liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.
This is a tremendously manipulative and liberal use of semantics that leaves a false impression. Talk about the Taliban and al-Qaida all you want, but the fact is there have been more terrorist attacks and more terrorist deaths since all this started. The Bush administration put out word that attacks and deaths had declined at one point and were forced to go back and declare a "clerical error". It is yet to be seen what happens with North Korea and Iran. I, along with everyone I know, hope that their threats have been slowed down. We'll see. AND while I detest what Saddaam did to "his own people" many of those were considered by his regime, the enemy, and the Kurds, who make up many of those numbers, were also abandoned by the United States in the first Gulf War when we enlisted their help and then left. How many of them died because of our broken promise? And by the way, when thinking of using weapons of mass destruction on one's own people, are you aware there were American prisoners of war in Hiroshima, and in Desden, Germany, when we fire-bombed it? Is there some number we have to consider when we say weapons of mass destruction were used on one's own people? Again, this is not a Republican Democrat thing completely.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
Oh, the war's over? We've taken Iraq? Man, I guess I'll have to turn over to Fox News because the rest of the news I'm getting doesn't back that. Are you sure you want to compare those two things? The Branch Dividian thing was probably a mistake, but the jury's still out on who killed whom there. Under any circumstances I wouldn't want to use it as a standard for action.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
Now it's just getting silly.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It would be even sillier to run through all the Democrats and Republicans mistakes and follies and shameful acts, to make a case for any of this.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
There was less resistance.
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military moral is high!
THAT is a question of who you ask. I can find you a whole bunch of military guys who would say that's true, and I can find you a whole bunch who would say it isn't.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
|
|
|
 | | Great message...censored. |
| | | |
NOT IN MY #$%*ING MEDIA CENTER
On October 27, 2003 a midwestern media specialist wrote Crutcher a letter admitting she would not place WHALE TALK in her library. "[It] had a great message," she said, but the "F" word ruled it out. "Walter Dean Myers got his message across [in MONSTER] without the use of the 'F' word at all," she pointed out. Why couldn't Crutcher? "I see it as a 'selection' issue," she continued, "rather than censorship...the language in many of your books keeps me from purchasing them...and that makes me sad, because you are an excellent writer with great insight into the world of young adults."
Crutcher's Response:
Thanks for your somewhat kind words about my work. I understand your reluctance to place my books in your media center. While I agree that "selection" is a wonderfully convenient term for "censorship" it doesn't change the intent. You said you pay attention to content. You also said Whale Talk had a "wonderful message". You said you wouldn't put it in your library because it had the "F" word. Seems like selective attention to "content" to me.
I heard a wonderful dictionary definition for the "F" word, as you call it, from an editor at Scholastic. The definition was this: "A meaningless intensifier". I like that because it describes the word exactly. It doesn't have sexual meaning unless prescribed.
The intimacy of a first person narrator is dependent on telling it all. The reader of a good story doesn't imagine him or herself being told a story by the author, but rather by the narrator, and that is the entity with whom they make their connection.
The damage you see being done to readers by reading what you call bad language is imaginary. What happens when adults freak out about the common usage language of teenagers is that teenagers know those adults can't hear about their lives in the language of their native tongue, and it makes them reluctant to tell all. I hear that in my office on a weekly basis. There is nothing wrong with an adult letting a teenager know they don't like that language or that they don't use it themselves, but when they rule it out they look scared.
I could cover your desk with letters I've received over the years from kids who have read only one book. "This book is real. It talks like we talk. This author isn't afraid." Now you tell me, in the best of worlds would you rather have a kid read a whole book, spurred on by a few bad words that he's going to use anyway, or would you rather take it out of his hands because you or your conservative community is offended? Sometimes getting the job done forces one into uncomfortable territory.
The truth is, I feel no urgency to get my books into your media center, and I resist the invitation to "be like Meyers" so I can get it there. And make no mistake about it, I think Walter is a dazzling author and writer. It makes me crazy that so-called "conservative" communities are so afraid. They believe not paying attention to reality keeps kids safe. I have not a lot of respect for that point of view.
So you will make your decisions based on your perspectives and I will make mine based on mine. The "F" word has the power we give it.
Thanks for your time. CC |
|
|
|
HARPER LEE'S LEGACY
Crutcher's claim he only read one book in high school is slightly exaggerated. He also read the Chip Hilton series by Claire Bee. But TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee did open his eyes to the power of literature. In this essay, Crutcher answers the question, "Why TKAMB?" and explains what the discovery truly meant to him.
Crutcher's Response:
On a late afternoon early in 1961-62 school year I crept across the upstairs hall of our house, through my older brother's bedroom and into his storage closet just because it was a forbidden place to be. It was an old, unfinished storage closet with lathe walls and a single bulb hanging from the ceiling that you had to screw in to get light. I did that, and heard angels singing, because in the back of my brother's closet was every school assignment he'd ever done, neatly categorized by date and subject. Every term paper, every book report. I had read my last book. No more Silas Marner, no more Hester Prynn. No more being wuthered by Withering Heights, or vice versa. Get the assignment, sneak into the closet, copy the report in my own handwriting (misspelling some words and coming to a few different conclusions) hand it in and get back to TV.
But then my English teacher did the unthinkable. She assigned something other than a book written by a person long dead. She snagged To Kill a Mockingbird off the bestseller list. Oops. Book's too new; my brother doesn't have a TKAM report. I started to skim: a few sentences, from well chosen chapters could get me my traditional C and we could be on with it. But I made a big mistake; I read more than a paragraph in the first chapter and in minutes was swallowed up by the voice of Scout, and the rugged lusciousness of the small town South. It was the first time I understood the term, "couldn't put it down". When I did, I couldn't wait to pick it back up. I wanted to sit on Atticus' porch, listen to his stories, stand behind him as he shot the rabid dog. I wanted to sneak up on the Radley porch, then run like hell, feeling the goosebumps from being watched from the darkened windows.
That was forty years ago. Unfortunately, my English teacher went back to the "classics" and I went back to my brother's closet, from which I didn't emerge until my early twenties. When I write stories today, I measure each and every one of them against To Kill a Mockingbird. When I get within a country mile, I'll raise my glass in the evening sunset and give eternal thanks to Harper Lee.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Onlines Resources
The TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD Student Survival Guide
http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/Belmont_HS/tkm/
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and Harper Lee Links
http://mockingbird.chebucto.org/
San Diego Office of Education TKAMB Teaching Aids
http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/tokil/mocktg.htm
The Learning Page TKAMB Lesson Plan
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/lessons/98/mock/intro.html
TKAMB: Growing Up in the '30s
http://www.slc.k12.ut.us/webweavers/jillc/mbird.html
TKAMB SparkNotes
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mocking/ |
|
|
|
| | |
Two more compelling titles...
...Crutcher has since enjoyed.
|
|
|
|
GIVE A PISSED OFF BOY A GUN
On March 8, 2001 -- days after the tragic Santana High School shooting just outside of San Diego, California -- YA literature expert, editor and Amazon.com reviewer Patty Campbell asked YALSA listserv participants if books like Todd Strasser's GIVE A BOY A GUN validated the anger of school shooters by depicting it in fiction. She asked if we, as a society could talk about it.
Crutcher's Response:
Somebody better start talking about it, and in a VERY different way than the new administration is talking about it.
George (he put the "duh" back in W) Bush came out and called the shooting at Santana High an "act of cowardice" and said we have to teach our children right from wrong. He earned his middle initial on that one. It goes half an inch above, 'Just Say No!' in terms of efficacy.
I think it is a mistake to look at books like Todd Strasser's GIVE A BOY A GUN as some kind of catalyst to this. You'll have to ask Todd, but I don't think that book was meant to speak to the Andy Williamses and Barry Loukitses of the world. It was meant to speak to us. It has the capacity of opening dialogue.
Andy Williams (man, doesn't that name throw you off) doesn't need us to validate his anger. His anger IS valid (I'm not saying his ACT was valid). There is either going to be a huge effort on the part of public schools for inclusion in the near future, or we're going to keep seeing kids who have no avenue for positive visibility continue to get negative visibility.
I heard one of Andy's buddies say his hero was Tony Hawk. The kid was a skateboarder. Imagine what it would be like for a kid like that if schools promoted skateboarding like they do football; it their peers cheered for them and backed them and gave them letter jackets.
Hey, get on one of those four wheeled suicide machines sometime and tell me those kids aren't athletes. And don't tire me out with talk of liability. You put twenty pounds of muscle on a kid, outfit him with pads and a missile-shell hard helmet and aim him at another kids knees -- four days a week in practice and once a week on the field of battle you call a 'gridiron.' Our schools have too narrow a focus.
And as long as I'm on this soapbox, let me say that Charleton Heston can kiss my butt. I saw our new Secretary of Education on TV this morning unwilling to even address the glut of guns. 'Don't focus on the instrument, focus on the children and the parents and the schools,' or something very close to that -- which is a double-digit IQ way of saying 'Guns don't kill people. Little kids kill people.' I'm with you, Mr. Secretary. Focus on the kids and the schools and the parents; but go ahead, take a chance, FOCUS ON THE INSTRUMENT.
With all due respect to those of you out there willing to stretch your imaginations far enough to include killing an unarmed animal a sport, guns do one thing. They put holes in things. And when they put holes in things, stuff leakes out. Sometimes it's blood and sometimes it's life.
I swear, if humans on this planet last long enough for our time to become history, they're going to look back and laugh their asses off that we are even having a national dialogue about guns. It's a myth, folks.
The guns were for a well 'organized militia.' They didn't mean Randy Weaver and his friends. Our forefathers would soil their drawers if they saw what we've done with that. Listen. COWBOYS DIDN'T SHOOT EACH OTHER. That's a myth, too.
I have no problem with metal detectors in schools and well trained security people. Many kids say they make them feel safer, and when those security people are trained to have relationships with the kids they're protecting - ALL of the kids they're protecting - it can create an added adult to turn to. But we have to do more.
We have to INCLUDE; ALL of them. We can't care about tattoos. We can't care about piercings. We can't care about trenchcoats. Want a bumper sticker for how to work with adolescents?
DON'T JUDGE AND DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.
This is going to take some creative thinking. There isn't an easy answer. Tougher punishment means NOTHING. These shooters are saying something loud and clear. They are saying, "Woe unto you when I no longer give a shit."
They are not thinking about how they are going to be tried. They are not thinking of their life in prison. They already HAVE a life in prison. They smile. They're glazed. They don't give a shit.
We have to catch them before that. Todd Strasser wrote GIVE A BOY A GUN to a culture which does that on a regular basis. There are no ideas in that book more destructive than hurting kids can get from their friends or out of their own heads."
For more about YALSA...click here.
For more on Crutcher's views on school violence, click here. |
|
| |
|
|
| | |
Chris Crutcher gets letters...lots and lots and lots and lots of letters. Each one is special, in its own way. Each one matters. But now and then, a note comes in that captures something universal or funny or moving -- or even something that's hard to believe.
Some of those letters will find their way to this page. We hope you enjoy them as much as Chris did. And we hope you'll keep sharing your thoughts with Chris, preferably by email at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
.
|
|
|
 | | Crutcher met Rochester student Jara at the 9th Annual Rochester Children's Book Festival in New York, November 5. Thanks to her teacher, Laurie Thurston for this photo. |
|
| | |
Jara Speaks!
Have you ever heard of the old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"? Well I have. I'll look at a cover and if I don't like it, I just put it back. Now I will never judge another book by its cover again, thanks to Chris Crutcher's book,"Running Loose" and a special thanks to my crazy, overly-excited, in love with Chris Crutcher teacher Ms. Thurston. For the FIRST TIME in my 14 years of looking at books and not reading them, I can finally say that I -- Jara Hale -- read a book and actually liked it. If you haven't read it, please read it because it gives you real and intense life lessons. It is made espcially to relate to teen life right down to the very core of a teenager. Thank you, Mr. Crutcher and my Crutcher-loving teacher, Ms. Thurston!! |
|
|
One Christian's View
April 27, 2005
Dear Mr. Crutcher,
I am a Secondary Education major at SUNY New Paltz in NY. In my Foundations of Education class this semester my Professor has mentioned several times the controversy and the censorship issues surrounding your novels, particularly in regards to Whale Talk. I've taken up the topic of censorship for my Research Brief for this
semester, and I hoped to use the current contraversy as a case study to include in the project. And so, I turned to your website in hopes of inspiration.
I wanted to thank you and commend you for the plethora of information you have included on your website. You are truly an advocate not only for literature, but for adolescents. Your letter "To high school students in Alabama (and everywhere)" truly depicts your dedication to adolescents. You did not leave the decisions made by adults in the hands of adults, as is so often the natural response. You took it to the ones that it truly affects. Your empathy and compassion speaks volumes for your moral character. As a devoted Christian I commend your efforts to enlighten and encourage reform in regards to the social and moral injustices that are commited on a
daily basis.
Unfortunately, hatred, stereotyping, ignorance, racism, religious and spiritual oppression, and moral, social and political corruption have become a part of the everyday life of teens across the country and around the world. It is good to know that yourself, among other authors, are taking a stand against it by addressing the issue, rather than pretending it does not exist. There is a phrase I came across in my own Christian studies which encourages the use of this phrase with teenagers and children: "You are not the church of tomorrow, you are the church RIGHT NOW!" I do believe the quote may be from Doug Fields, but I can not be sure. Your writing and advocacy show that you do indeed respect adolescents as not simply the future of our
country, but part of it RIGHT NOW!
I am sure that the struggles that you face defending adolescents and your writing are often difficult, frustrating and defeating. I just wanted to take this moment to reassure you and hopefully add another little reminder that what you do as a writer and advocate is appreciated. You are a role model for students, educators, writers
and readers of all types. For all of our sake, know that your work is appreciated, commended and necessary. You truly are an inspiration.
Sincerely and with the greatest admiration,
Dannielle Douglas
Kerhonkson, New York |
|
|
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Anticipated, Anxious, Annoyed,
Came out and talked to us
You speak with such great words
Such great wisdom
Amazing stories that you tell
They are all so exciting
You say they ban your books
That is ridiculous – they help us young people
You’re the lesser of three evils
You tell it how it is
And what you say we already know
Society doesn’t accept that, though
But your books . . .
Help us through the rough
the good, the bad, and the ugly stuff.
David Neumann
W. L. Hauke High School
Conroe, Texas
February 8, 2005 |
|
|
Chris Crutcher and the Right to Read
by Michelle Pelini
Kurt Vonnegut once said, “All these people talk so eloquently about getting back to the good old-fashioned values. Well, as an old poop, I can remember back to when we had those old-fashioned values, and I say let’s get back to the good old-fashioned First Amendment of the good old-fashioned Constitution of the United States – and to hell with the censors! Give me knowledge or give me death!” (Yanosko). Vonnegut shares his view of censorship with fellow author Chris Crutcher, who has written a number of books, all of which have been challenged for their content. Book censorship is a delicate subject for many people for a variety of reasons. While some find it beneficial to keep “vulgar” or “obscene” books off shelves, others believe that censorship is a senseless and useless tool, believing that no one has the right to restrict anyone’s reading and thinking. For many authors, such as Chris Crutcher, this controversy is the reason they keep writing in an honest and controversial style so that people will continue to think and discuss the life issues that they present. An understanding of censorship and the controversies it causes can be based on all the definitions, the reasons supporting and negating it, a knowledge of who censors Crutcher’s books and where, an awareness of the results, as well as the realization that authors, in addition to many other people, defend their books.
In a legal sense, censorship is defined as “a review of publications, movies, play, and the like for the purpose of prohibiting the publication, distribution, or production of material deemed objectionable, obscene, indecent, or immoral; such actions are frequently challenged as constituting a denial of freedom of press and speech” (Black 224). By this description, after a court hearing, the government decides whether or not material is suitable and strictly controls whether or not it should be. Psychologically, censorship is considered “the prevention of disturbing thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness” (Pickett 233). Here, the censor keeps all harmful thoughts or ideas from an adolescent’s mind. A censor is a person who actually bans a book or “one authorized to examine books, films, or other material and suppress what is considered objectionable” (233). The average censor of young adult material, usually a regular citizen, believes he or she is taking the most positive action by challenging materials that he or she finds detrimental (Reichard).
When challenging a book, most censors share four common motives: “family values, religion, religious views, and pornography” (Reichard). A more detailed list could include “sex, profanity, racism, Satanism, witchcraft, homosexuality, excessive violence, drug abuse, evolution, suicide, anti-Semitism, and world government” (Reichard). Censors of young adults books are opposed to young people having access to books with these topics. While censors believe in restricting teenagers’ knowledge, those who oppose censorship, such as librarian Joni Bodart, declare, “We adults value our ability to make informed decisions based on information from as many sources as we choose to examine. It is inappropriate to deny teenagers that same right” (Bodart). Many young adult fiction novelists agree that material should be age-appropriate material; that, yes, a third grade student should not be exposed to certain topics, but teenagers have a right to read books and become educated about the adult world. Award-winning author Judy Blume recommends, “Let children read whatever they want and then talk about it with them. If parents and kids can talk together, we won’t have as much censorship because we won’t have as much fear” (Reichard). Most teenagers oppose censorship because they want to know about good and bad in the real world. “One student writes, ‘If teachers and parents are trying to shield their children from the controversial scenes and the questionable language, then they are trying to shield them from real life’ ” (Blasingame). Although many parents feel that teenagers will act on what they read, in most cases, this is not true. These adolescents, the future leaders of this world, need experience and education to grow into mature, knowledgeable adults. Is censorship the answer to these problems? To discover this, everything about censorship must be understood.
Henry Reichman, author of Censorship and Selection, defines censorship as “the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic, or educational materials on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in the light of the standards applied by a censor” (Reichard). Chris Crutcher, a teenage fiction novelist, is well acquainted with this definition. “Noted for his sports-themed, fast-paced stories of high school students dealing with tough issues, Crutcher has received criticism and censorship even in his hometown” (Carmel Clay Public Library). While Crutcher knows his realistic portrayals offend many people, he makes no apologies for his writing. “My mission is to write truths as I see them, reflect the world as it appears to me, rather than as others would have it. There are significant amounts of people who think kids should not be exposed in print to what they are exposed to in their lives” (Carmel Clay Public Library).
These versions of Crutcher’s truths have caused all of his novels to be either challenged or banned. Because Crutcher feels very strongly about censorship, his main website, aboutcrutcher.com, focuses on the many cases brought against his novels under the section entitled, “Censorship.” For example, his novel Chinese Handcuffs was challenged in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin in May 1998 because a parent thought it was inappropriate for high school students. Once part of the English curriculum, the work has been removed for controversial issues such as incest, rape, animal torture, teen drug use, breaking and entering, illegal use of a video camera, profanity directed to a school principal, and graphic sexual references (Wildflower). While these topics are inappropriate for grade school children, many high school students deal with these issues. Therefore, Crutcher’s works present a way for parents, teachers, and students to exchange ideas about these topics. In Hawaii, another Crutcher book, Crazy Horse Electric Game, has been effectively banned because the librarians thought it was “trash and had no right to be published.” Soon after, supporters of the book helped to overturn this decision (Davis 75). In January 1998, “Censorship Dateline” recorded that Stotan was challenged in the libraries of Ripley, West Virginia, with no specific reason given (Wildflower).
Running Loose, another of Crutcher’s novels, about teenage dilemmas, was challenged by parents in Gwinnett County, Georgia for its mention of sex. After being removed from the Cascade High School Library, the copy of Running Loose was locked in the principal’s desk (Wildflower). The novel was also removed from libraries in Berlin, Pennsylvania (Davis 60) because parents objected to the following passage:
[Boomer's] always talking about making it with some girl he's never touched and
adding some weirdball garbage that, if it had really happened, would cheapen her.
Like he said he took Adrienne Klinner down to the drive-in in Boise, and when she
was out going to the bathroom, he poked a hole in the bottom of the popcorn box
and stuck Ol' Norton up through. (Boomer's dad doesn't let him cuss--beats him up
when he hears it--so Boomer calls his 'thing' Ol' Norton.) Anyway, then he held the
box in his lap, and when she'd eaten down about halfway (three-quarters would
be more like it), she got a handful. Said she shrieked at first, but then she started
playing with it and went crazy. Crap like that. He's so dumb he doesn't know every
jerk in the world has told that story. I mean, Adrienne Klinner would have poured
her Coke into the box and taken a bus back to Trout.
(Crutcher Running Loose 11-12)
While this passage from the novel may seem inappropriate, many teenagers could compare the lie that Boomer tells to lies that the average teenage boy tells. By reading this book, a teenager who has had a bad experience with rumors may find comfort in knowing that many others have gone through a similar unpleasant incident.
In Portland, Oregon in September 2003, Fowlerville, Michigan in October 2003, and St. Joseph, Missouri in January 2002, Whale Talk was challenged because it tells of a young biracial girl who is the stepchild of a racist man with no one to defend her. While a young man hears her story, no foul language or traumatizing, violent confrontations are omitted (“Censorship”). The following excerpt is an excellent example of racial slang that caused censors to attack the novel (Crutcher, Whale Talk 67).
In a calm voice Georgia tells me I’m supposed to yell at Heidi for letting the black
dolls in the house, and I finally piece together from Heidi that I’m also supposed
to find them one by one, scream at Heidi for letting each one in (Get these nigger
babies out of the house! they stinky!) […] I am caught for one moment in mid-
scream, but Heidi screams, “GET THESE GODD*AMN F**K NIGGER KIDS OUT
OF THE HOUSE!!!” (68-69)
While the language in this part of the book is abrasive, it is also realistically teaches how the ignorance of racism can make a child believe that he or she is impure because of color. For this reason, teenagers should not be sheltered from this, but be made to read and understand the ignorance and brutality of racism.
Another Crutcher novel, Athletic Shorts, was challenged in Anchorage, Alaska, Atchison, Kansas, and Corpus Christi, Texas for racism, homosexuality, and lack of respect for adults (“Censorship”). Yet again, Crutcher attempts to teach teenagers about real life issues.
Despite the challenges against his works, Crutcher confidently defends his writing, “I
think the value in books like mine, and a great number by other talented writers, is in the ability to bring dark subjects into the open where they are not so dark, where they can be talked about and considered by teens and adults alike. A lot of things I write about are tougher on adults than they are on teens” (Harper Collins Children’s Books Publishing). In response to the banning of his book Whale Talk in St. Joseph, Missouri, Crutcher professes
I can’t tell you the number of kids—not just he abused and neglected, but the
privileged also – who have sat in my office and lamented that they couldn’t tell
their parents the true secrets of their lives because they couldn’t stand the reaction,
and would be diminished in their parents’ eyes. You can ban or restrict my book
---and let me be very clear that I have no investment one way or the other ---
all you want […] But when you show your kids you are afraid of uncomfortable
material by keeping it from them, you will take yourself off that short list of people
to turn to when they need you to listen to the expression of their fears rather than
tell them what to do […] In my opinion, you would put yourself in a much better
position with them by discussing the story—including the language and ideas
you don’t like, and why you don’t like them—than following your current path.
(“Censorship”)
When he heard about Running Loose being challenged in Berlin, Pennsylvania, Crutcher wrote to several parents encouraging communication [emphasis mine] with their children about the previous controversial passage taken from Running Loose. In a letter addressed to the censors, he wrote, “Whether you like it or not, that scene […] is tame compared to what your children are exposed to every day” (Davis 60-61). Crutcher finds parent-child discussion very important in helping the young generation to develop into virtuous adults. In addition, he observes that telling kids the truth about life keeps them well informed and able to deal with anything that life sends their way (“Censorship”). Very outspoken about censorship, Crutcher tells about his immediate reaction to his first novel being banned: “Actually, I was kind of happy about it. For one thing, it meant someone was at least using the novel […] and I have enough ‘fight’ in me that I like the argument" (Crutcher). Some consider Crutcher a leader against censorship, but he doesn’t agree. In his mind, it is his job to continue writing and to support every teacher who uses his book in the classroom (Halls). Most importantly, Crutcher is in favor of knowledge. He states:
Look, we’re either going to be informed in this country, or not. We’re either
going to be decent in this country, or we’re not. We’re either going to be
compassionate in this country, or we’re not. […] Kids would much rather we
found ways to discuss those tough issues than to pretend they don’t exist. They
will always come up in real life, it seems to me we want to be there when they do.
Kids say over and over that we don’t understand. Why don’t we see if we can
prove them wrong once in a while? (“Censorship”)
Chris Crutcher believes in enforcing conversation to keep teenagers informed so that they might feel that the adults in their lives are trustworthy. If parents and teachers try to talk with young people instead of hide things from them, eventually, teenagers may try to open up instead of turning to harmful or dangerous vices.
Besides Crutcher, many others stand against censorship by supporting his work. Terry Davis, fellow author and friend, writes, “When we consider Crutcher’s status in young adult literature, it might be hard to believe that any of his books were ever met with disapproval or disdain” (Davis 75). But it is not, in fact, hard to believe. The more people approve of books that tackle touchy issues, the more other people will object to such issues being discussed at all. Chris Crutcher talks about real, serious issues in teens’ lives and as such, his works will continue to be censored (Wildflower). Another Crutcher supporter, Fowelerville High School English teacher, Mrs. S., encourages the reading of Crutcher’s books when she writes, “In my five years of teaching, I have NEVER seen so much discussion, reflection, analysis, connection, and critical thinking when it comes to a book […]. Students are actually voicing that they want to be better people” (“Censorship”). Ian McKinney, assistant manager of young adult fiction services, defends Crutcher’s book Athletic Shorts because it teaches that “racism isn’t a positive thing, but you can’t erase it by not writing about it in literature. If anything, the opposite is true: you can make a start at making it better by writing about it. Crutcher’s introduction to the story makes it clear that this is where he’s coming from, and also that people will disagree, and he chooses to take his chances with that” (“Censorship”). Young Adult Literature Head Librarian, Erin Howerton, presents Crutcher as
[…] one of those rare and wonderful people: a writer gifted with the ability to tell
realstories of teenagers (and adults) in a powerfully compelling manner. His books
are incredibly thought provoking, riddled with honesty, and not one page shirks from
his mission to tell the truth about our lives. Adults and teens alike would do well to
read Crutcher and engage in an examination of the seeds of hatred and prejudice
that live in us all. To ignore, hide, or suppress works of literature that bravely face
both the high and low moments of human existence can only result in an oppressive
and fundamentally undemocratic society. (“Censorship”)
Librarian Jennie Garner sums Crutcher up perfectly: “He tells it like it is. He lets teens know about, or shows them, their own realities, things that they might not think they can talk about—and shows them that they can” (“Censorship”).
When censoring and challenging books, censors keep important knowledge from teenagers, especially in the case of Chris Crutcher’s novels. By writing about topics most parents fear, Crutcher opens a new outlet for teenagers to use: books. Instead of turning to drugs, alcohol, or sex, teenagers can read his books and be comforted by the fact that they are not the only ones in a certain situation. During adolescence, kids slowly mature in a difficult process when they do not trust or even want to talk to adults. By reading certain literature, teenagers can discover and deal with their problems through a positive outlet. As Erin Howerton, a head librarian, states, “If Chris is brave enough to write the books, we should be brave enough to read them and think critically about what they have to say” (“Censorship”). |
|
|
ABOUT THIS ESSAY:
Michelle Pelini, a high school student, wrote this outstanding essay as a term paper for Honors English 11 class on December 20, 2004. She scored a 95%, and confessed that her teacher rarely gave A's.
Thank you, Michelle, for letting us post your thoughts on censorship and Crutcher's work on his website. No one could have said it better. |
|
|
|
