Strollerderby : libraries

Why Can't Johnny Read? Because Someone Thinks His Books Contain Lead

Jen Chaney — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:58:00 GMT

When it comes to lead poisoning, most parents probably prefer to be safe vs. sorry. But even the most cautious among us may think that keeping some children's books from our kids is taking things a little too far.

In the wake of that recent federal law that bans any children's product containing trace elements of lead, a couple of libraries freaked out earlier this month and restricted access to children's books published prior to 1986. Why? Because before regulations began to take effect that year, small amounts of lead still could be found in printing ink. Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association, told the Associated Press that one library roped off its children's section and another -- no joke -- covered some of its kids' books with a tarp. After the ALA contacted the libraries, which Sheketoff did not identify, they took their respective rope and tarp down. After all, reading is fundamental, even if it is deadly.

In all seriousness, there is no solid proof that books published prior to 1986 are in fact harmful to children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has said its staff is "investigating" to make sure the ink does not pose any risk. But a specialist also said in the same AP story that it's unlikely all those old picture books and young adult novels are truly dangerous.

In an op-ed piece, the Wall Street Journal placed the blame for all this confusion on Congress and, more specifically, Nancy Pelosi. From my perspective, it seems like this issue could have been resolved a long time ago. Like, say, in 1987. Once we realized there was some lead in that ink, why didn't the CPSC or some other organization investigate and make absolutely sure our children could read those books in good health? We've only known about this for two-plus decades, right?

From my perspective, that's why legislation like the ban just passed by Congress is so necessary. Until a stringent law is put in place, all of us get too complacent about these things. We throw a tarp over the problem, so to speak, and just pray it will go away.

That said, I suspect and hope that this really is a non-issue. Because even if the libraries toss every book published before U2 released "The Joshua Tree," plenty of Americans own copies of these older books. And I'd hate to think that those cherished versions of "Corduroy" and "Good Night, Moon" that we read to our kids every night are actually causing them harm.

Image: Waaytv.com

Will Libraries Go the Way of Video Stores?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:15:00 GMT

Anyone who has both used Netflix and had an overdue library book knew it was only a matter of time until the same model was used for books. And in fact, there are a few companies out there who have been sailing in those waters, like Booksfree and Book Swim. Book Swim is now specifically promoting itself to pregnant women ("It costs a lot to buy all those pregnancy books only to discover that most of them are useless and mostly designed to scare the crap out of you." Ahem, my words, not theirs) and also parents of the voracious read-to-me set ("save money spent on buying lots of children's books that can be rented instead." Their words, not mine).

While it appeals on some level, I have quibbles with the execution: They have not yet gotten the one of the main keys to Netflix's success, which is having everything, not just the most popular stuff. I looked up several of my daughter's favorites on Book Swim, and they weren't there. Not only that, but her not-all-that-obscure beloved tales don't come anywhere near meeting the fine-print criteria for the cheery "just tell us what you want and we'll buy it for you!" option, which include "an Amazon sales rank of at least 20,000." That's pretty narrow folks. I think there must be 20,000 best-selling unofficial political biographies alone.

If you're going to charge $20 to 40/month for 3 to 11 books at a time (Book Swim. Don't get fooled by their low intro rate—it's one month only) or $10 to $50/month for 2 to 15 books at time (Booksfree), you need super-duper-special selection and service. Remember folks, you are competing against free. I suppose if I had to drive to the library, or had a work schedule that conflicted with its hours, the delivery aspect would be more of a draw and feel like less of an environmental faux pas, but from my home office it just looks like one more lost excuse to get out of the house for 15 minutes. (And it's worth noting that many libraries apparently will deliver too under some circumstances.)

I'm sure the right person with sufficient capital could iron out these issues, add a recommendation engine, and be really in business. (Unless the higher cost of shipping books compared to DVDs just makes it an idea whose time hasn't come after all. It's possible.)

But what really troubles me, of course, is the idea of abandoning the library. Libraries still serve as one of the rare public meeting spaces not devoted to commerce. They help kids with research and adults with job hunts and starting businesses and their own formal and informal educations. Libraries buy books based on both popularity and serving their public. They tend to fight the good fight to make sure controversial material is available. You know, good qualifty-of-life, bastion of democracy stuff.

We recently had a budget vote on a large plan to expand and upgrade the branch libraries up here in Albany, so I've seen the research about the social and economic benefits of a good library. But I've also heard from the kooks who say that with the Internet and big-box bookstores, we don't need libraries anymore, and I hate the idea of giving them more ammunition. I know book renters would still pay their library taxes, but usage rates and general familiarity are crucial to keep libraries' budgets away from the ax.

I think with the right savvy, libraries are up to the task of competing with even an improved book rental service. Already, through inter-library loans you can get almost anything, and with my countywide system's online reservation system, it's almost as easy as Netflix to request something. A little slow to get it, but that should be fixable. Make renewing easier, with a warning system when something's coming due, and you're most of the way there for me.

Besides, for picture books, the library already wins hands down: My daughter gets the tactile adventure of browsing the shelves and discovering hidden gems, and we get the excuse of "Oh, that has to go back to the library now!" when a not-quite-gem has worn out its welcome.

Photo by Sugar Pond.

More by this author:

Six Steps to a Parent-Friendly Wedding

They Say: Microwave Safe Ain't

Learning to Read through Video Games

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:30:00 GMT

Increasingly, books for children and young adults are being released with related video games. Since 97 percent of children ages 12 to 17 play computer and video games, this seems like a surefire to draw at least some reluctant readers into books. But when libraries host gaming tournaments and elementary schools incorporate video games into English lessons, you have to wonder, “Is this still reading?”

A large number of writers, publicists, and educators believe it is—and that, in the age of digital media, computer skills may be more important than proficiency with print media.

PJ Haarsma is a former advertising consultant who now designs online games about his science fiction novels for preteens. He argues that pairing video games with young adult literature “brings the book into their world, as opposed to going the other way around.”

But, as I pointed out in my tribute to Roald Dahl, the mark of a good book is precisely the ability to get lost in it, to live inside a world of which one has no experiential knowledge. This is particularly important for children, who largely learn empathy, respect for the imagination, and the value of introspection through reading. When one is being tested about a book’s plot in order to advance in a video game, the quiet, self-forgetful pleasure of being lost in a good book gets obliterated completely. Children learn that the only character who matters is the one holding the controller.

Photo: New York Times

Banned Books Week

Librarians Banning Books? Another Take on Banned Books Week

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:40:00 GMT

Let me start off by saying that I adore librarians (being the daughter of two, including a children's librarian), and have immense respect for the fights they've been fighting to in defense of free speech and access to controversial content, as well as all they put up with from people who think they know how to do a librarian's job better than the librarian.

But I couldn't quite write off this post by small-press author Joe Ekaitis charging that library policies that limit purchases to books reviewed in high-profile journals are limiting the range of what kids have access to just as much or more than moralistic wackos who rarely succeed in getting a book banned in more than one or two individual places. In fact, he argues that celebrity-penned books with bad reviews get bought, while books that got published on merit alone are being overlooked.

And ayway, he asked, "how does a book build up a readership without some exposure, beginning close to home? Isn't the library the place to discover books you can't easily find elsewhere? Everyone knows where to find best-sellers. They're at Wal-Mart."

There's clearly some sour grapes tone to the argument, but also a worrying charge. It shouldn't take more time to read and judge a picture book donated by a local author than to read a review of it. (Or maybe the donation is the problem, since a librarian doesn't want to feel obligated to shelve something she doesn't like because it was free.) And yes, I don't want my library to just replicate the shelves at big box bookstores. (For the record, I don't feel like mine does.)

What you do think? How are the shelves in your library? Are you worried about defacto censorship by publishing monopoly?

Strollerderby's recent banned books week coverage:

James and the Giant Peach; Kama Sutra for Kids; Smother the Fire and Read a Banned Book

In the Night Kitchen; Little Women; R.L. Stine's Goosebumps; Sarah Palin; And Tango Makes Three

Shel Silverstein; Where's Waldo?; Judy Blume and 'Forever'; Is Racism Packaged as Children's Literature Defensible?

Roald Dahl's The Witches

More by this author:

10 Names to Give Your Under-5 Daughter for Her . . . You Know

Banned Books Week: Roald Dahl's The Witches

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Roald Dahl was my first role model. After I read The Witches in third grade, I decided I wanted to be a writer when I grew up. Not only did I read everything else Dahl had written, but I started writing my own stories in imitation of his style. I lent The Witches to my best friend, who struggled in school and especially hated reading. She also fell in love with Dahl, and we’ve been swapping books ever since.

Dahl is so beloved amongst elementary school children because he understands the child’s worldview, and he writes from it. His creations are whimsical and imaginative in the way that children think. Perhaps most importantly, he makes kids laugh. Reading his books gave me the message that my own imagination was valued, and could be a highly entertaining plaything. When a writer constructs a story that engages young people to this degree, his books should be spread as widely as possible.

But this is apparently not the thinking of many outspoken critics. The Witches, number 27 on the list of the most frequently challenged books of 90s, was criticized by psychologists for being unrealistic, and therefore giving children a false idea of the way the world works. Feminists were outraged by its supposedly negative portrayal of women. And, naturally, witch groups throughout the world were highly offended.

To all of these critics, Dahl responded, “Get a sense of humor.” Children do not read his books as sociological textbooks, but as stories, works of the imagination. Dahl’s witches are not even human; they have no toes.

The Witches is not the only Dahl creation to come under fire. Many of Dahl’s books were frequently challenged because, in the words of one critic, he doesn’t write about “nice themes.” (Talk about unrealistic.) I still can’t watch a horror movie without having nightmares for days, so I guarantee that if Dahl’s books were overly dark or violent, I wouldn’t have read them. The Witches is certainly scary at times, which is part of what makes it a great read. It taught me to be lost in a book to the degree that I became scared or happy or sad along with the characters.

Being moved by literature is one of the most important ways that young children learn to be engaged with the world. Teaching children that only “nice” feelings and events are acceptable to talk about dangerously limits this engagement.

Today, I remember almost nothing of the storyline of The Witches, but I often recall the way it affected me. The plot itself didn’t matter nearly as much as the fact that I got completely lost in it. Dahl himself put it best himself: “If my books can help children become readers, then I feel I have accomplished something important.”

Image: reader2.com

Roald Dahl's Widow Recalls His Childlike Sensibility

Stuart Little Was a Banned Book

Amy Kuras — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Did you know that the first public libraries not only didn’t admit children, they actively discouraged them? The first public libraries in NYC would not admit anyone under the age of 14 or 16, depending, and even then rejected youth's tendency to read "trash" like Dickens and Cooper. At the Astor Library, young girls were not allowed at all.

Anne Clement Moore changed all that. She was the first children's librarian in the NYC system and as such pretty much set the standards for children's libraries nationwide. Think about that –I'd be willing to bet families with young kids are some of the biggest users of libraries, and even that many of us who haven’t darkened the door of library since college become regulars at story hours, etc.

A fascinating article in the New Yorker this week chronicles not only Moore's creation of the children's library and in many ways, the entire genre of juvenile fiction, but the not always honorable ways she used that power. She actually attempted to block publication of children's classic Stuart Little, leading to many school districts and children's libraries banning the book.

Much of Moore's actions came because E.B. White and his wife, Katharine Angell White, rejected Moore's clumsy efforts to cultivate them. White wrote reviews of children's books for The New Yorker and staunchly rejected the twee and treacly nature of much children's fiction.

Many librarians and teachers sided with White, including one librarian who had her school's entire fourth grade class read the book "in order to decide whether it belongs in our school library."

Wonder what Moore would have thought of "Don't Let The Pigeon Drive the Bus"?

Don't Write Off Libraries Just Yet

Amy S.F. Lutz — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:34:00 GMT

I may not be able to tell my kids that I walked five miles to school in the snow uphill both ways, but I have had the conversation I consider to be the 21st-century equivalent: "We didn't have the internet when I was a kid! If I wanted to find something out, I couldn't just look it up on the web, I had to go to the library! That's right, my mother and I had to get in the car and drive there! We didn't have this wealth of information right at our fingertips like you lucky bastards!" etc. etc. But it turns out that the ubiquity of the internet hasn't kept today's kids away from public libraries. In fact, a new study reports that young adults use libraries more than any other demographic.

And it's not, despite what you might assume, because 99% of libraries offer free internet access - teens without internet access at home are less likely than those who do to turn to libraries. According to the study, Americans age 18-30 are most likely to consult libraries for additional information about education, health conditions, job training and government benefits. They take advantage of all the resources libraries can offer, including very specific reference materials, books, newspapers and magazines.

So, I guess the age of libraries isn't over, and maybe I'll find myself making the same runs to the library my mother made whenever my kids are assigned a new project. Only I think I might be a little more vigilant than she was about making sure we don't rack up too many overdue fines.

Bad Credit? Blame Your Library!

Amy S.F. Lutz — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:00:00 GMT

Libraries always seem so great, in theory. Free, unfettered access to a tremendous selection of books and movies. It's so easy to let yourself get inspired to check out The Brothers Karamazov or Citizen Kane, to let yourself believe the library will make you a better person. And it might. It might also make you, in the eyes of banks and other lenders, a poor credit risk.

Borrowers from the nation's largest library systems rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid overdue fines and unreturned materials every year. Now, 900 libraries, such as the Queens and New York Public Library systems, have turned to Unique Management Services, a collection agency that reports the 30% of overdue borrowers who fail to respond to repeated requests for payment to credit bureaus. One rabbi who ignored Unique's threatening letters found he no longer had the perfect credit record he had been depending on to get a mortgage.

And if a rabbi can't remember to return his books on time, what chance do the rest of us have? I'm going to Borders, just to be safe. I may have to pay more upfront but at least I won't have any problem getting a house to keep my books in.

School Libraries Lure Students With Coffee

Madeline Holler — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:31:00 GMT

We Americans are a heavily beveraged culture. If we’re not holding a creamy iced-coffee in a clear plastic cup, we’re swigging water from brightly colored Nalgene or disposable plastic sport bottles. Our kids suck on sippy cups more often than soldiers carrying canteens. Everybody’s holding something potable in one hand or the other.

Some school libraries are conceding to the ubiquitous water bottle or can of Red Bull and letting kid patrons sip while they read in order to attract more students. Other schools are taking advantage of unquenchable thirst and setting up cafes right next to the stacks. Student workers make the macchiatas while the librarians sit behind the desk and observe for the first time what a student in a library actually looks like.

School officials say allowing food, drink and the spoken word in libraries increases reading and studying by promoting the place as a hangout. Critics say the cafes are just another source of sugar, fat and caffeine for the kids and kind of negates any progress made in getting rid of vending machines. Profits often go towards scholarships (for those students who now have to hide under a rock to concentrate?).

One teen interviewed in the article said the library would be boring without the food and drink and he wouldn't go there. So here’s my question – is getting teens to sit next to books actually promoting the library for its intended use? Isn’t that like putting your notes under your pillow to study for an exam? I suppose accommodating the liquid lifeline that no person under 18 has ever had to go without will get a least a few more people through the doors. But actual library users were probably already sneaking it in anyway.

Photo: Associated Press

Library Magic for Young Children

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:23:00 GMT

The concept of low-cost entertainment for young children that doesn't involve a trip to a mouse-loud restaurant, a big purple dinosaur or a precocious Spanish speaking black-haired preschooler seems elusive these days.

Enter the oldie but goodie: the library. Even old 60's architecture-d musty old libraries like the one in my town filled as it is with Berenstein Bears and other outdated books from the 70s is a worthwhile outing for my young ones.

Most city libraries have story times for young kids and many have crafty hours and activities for even the most restless of waddlers. And even though the majority occur during the week and during work hours, the occasional Saturday and Sunday activities can be scouted out.

Give me a library over Dora or Barney any old day.

J.K. Rowling to Libraries: Preserve This "Magical Moment" for Kids - Or Pay!

Alisyn — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:24:00 GMT

Scholastic book publishers and Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling sent a strongly worded contract to all libraries in anticipation of the seventh and final book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

The contract states that all libraries must limit the number of employees who handle the books before the July 21 release and provide names and contact information for each branch manager. And failure to keep the book under wraps until July 21 could exclude libraries from receiving future embargoed titles. "We acknowledge and agree that any such violation will cause irreparable harm to Scholastic and the author, J.K. Rowling, and that monetary damages will be inadequate to compensate for violations," the contract states.

In other words: no peeking! NONE! Or no one in your town will ever find out whether Harry and Ginny end up together, whether Harry defeats the evil Lord Voldemort or is defeated by him, what the deal with Snape is, or how Harry and Neville's mysterious connection will finally play out (I'm convinced that it will figure into the new book somehow).

Scholastic spokeswoman Kyle Good says such strict guidelines are necessary to respect what J.K. Rowling calls a "magical moment" for children. "When you have a print run of 12 million books that you're sending out into the world, just in the U.S. alone, and you do want to preserve a very special moment for children, you take whatever precautions you need."

I love the Harry Potter series as much as anyone else, and I pre-ordered my Deathly Hallows copy from Amazon at least 6 months ago... but seriously? Contracts and proposed sanctions - for libraries? Isn't that taking it a bit too far? Does the same contract apply to private bookstores and giant superstores? I know J.K. Rowling is now more successful than god... but jeez, man. Take it easy!