George

[JimG]

I had usually thought of Scholastic Books as a reliable publisher of books for children. But apparently, nothing is reliable anymore. This essay by Anthony Esolen mentions one of their latest offerings—a book about a little boy who thinks he is a girl. No doubt it will show up in school libraries.

“Scholastic Books, for instance, is peddling some tens of thousands of copies of a book called George, about a little boy who knows that he is “really” a girl, and who finds a way to play Charlotte in his class’s production of Charlotte’s Web, so that everybody will finally know who he is—as the book’s subtitle has it, Be Who You Are. The author, one Alex Gino, a fat fellow with pink hair, refers to himself as “they” and begs to be addressed with the honorific “Mx.,” pronounced “Mix.” His aim is to inject his own dermatitis into the lives of small children: to confuse them, calling the confusion “diversity.””

The full essay is here.

 

[1ke]

I had usually thought of Scholastic Books as a reliable publisher of books for children.

Scholastic is a $1.6 Billion, for profit, publicly traded company. Shareholders (to some degree) and the Board, not to parents or schools, control Scholastic.

Scholastic is primarily a distributor of books, although they also publish some. You can get most of their books elsewhere, cheaper.

 

[HouseArrest]

Scholastic has been promoting questionable books for children for close to two decades.

 

[Spark2]

I had usually thought of Scholastic Books as a reliable publisher of books for children. But apparently, nothing is reliable anymore. This essay by Anthony Esolen mentions one of their latest offerings—a book about a little boy who thinks he is a girl. No doubt it will show up in school libraries.

“Scholastic Books, for instance, is peddling some tens of thousands of copies of a book called George, about a little boy who knows that he is “really” a girl, and who finds a way to play Charlotte in his class’s production of Charlotte’s Web, so that everybody will finally know who he is—as the book’s subtitle has it, Be Who You Are. The author, one Alex Gino, a fat fellow with pink hair, refers to himself as “they” and begs to be addressed with the honorific “Mx.,” pronounced “Mix.” His aim is to inject his own dermatitis into the lives of small children: to confuse them, calling the confusion “diversity.””

The full essay is here.

It is a lovely, compelling book with well written and fully realized characters. Have you read the book yourself? I am assuming not. I find it utterly unacceptable when people criticize books without having read them generously, with an open mind. This generosity has extended to the many, many Catholic tomes that have gifted to me by in-laws. I feel I have benefited from this open hearted approach and I strongly encourage you to approach “George” in a similar manner.

Also, please do not describe the author as “fat” or “fellow”. Both are dismissive and unkind terms. Surely you do not need to use ugly and derogatory words to describe someone who presents ideas different from your own.

 

[cjb_914]

It is a lovely, compelling book with well written and fully realized characters. Have you read the book yourself? I am assuming not. I find it utterly unacceptable when people criticize books without having read them generously, with an open mind. This generosity has extended to the many, many Catholic tomes that have gifted to me by in-laws. I feel I have benefited from this open hearted approach and I strongly encourage you to approach “George” in a similar manner.

Also, please do not describe the author as “fat” or “fellow”. Both are dismissive and unkind terms. Surely you do not need to use ugly and derogatory words to describe someone who presents ideas different from your own.

I can’t speak to the accuracy of the description of Alex Gino, but the paragraph you referenced there was a quote from an essay by Anthony Esolen, not a description by our fellow forumite JimG. I’ll assume that it was simple haste that led you to react as you did and not uncharity, but I find it utterly unacceptable when people criticize posts without having read them accurately (as well as generously and with an open mind), and strongly encourage you to treat the words of those here as generously as you would a published author in the future.

The subject matter of a book can mean that it is inappropriate regardless of how well written it is or how compelling the characters are. It doesn’t denigrate the artistry of the artist to point out that the thing they’ve portrayed is objectionable, which if you read his post with an open mind and generous heart, you’ll see that his intent was not to denigrate the work of Mr Gino, but to indeed, point out that he thinks it ought not be carried by Scholastic. Whether you agree with that assessment or not I reiterate that it does not denigrate the work by Mr Gino, and in fact, if it was a poor and ineffective work there wouldn’t seem to be any real reason to talk about it.

 

[Spark2]

I can’t speak to the accuracy of the description of Alex Gino, but the paragraph you referenced there was a quote from an essay by Anthony Esolen, not a description by our fellow forumite JimG. I’ll assume that it was simple haste that led you to react as you did and not uncharity, but I find it utterly unacceptable when people criticize posts without having read them accurately (as well as generously and with an open mind), and strongly encourage you to treat the words of those here as generously as you would a published author in the future.

The subject matter of a book can mean that it is inappropriate regardless of how well written it is or how compelling the characters are. It doesn’t denigrate the artistry of the artist to point out that the thing they’ve portrayed is objectionable, which if you read his post with an open mind and generous heart, you’ll see that his intent was not to denigrate the work of Mr Gino, but to indeed, point out that he thinks it ought not be carried by Scholastic. Whether you agree with that assessment or not I reiterate that it does not denigrate the work by Mr Gino, and in fact, if it was a poor and ineffective work there wouldn’t seem to be any real reason to talk about it.

Fair enough, and I will alter my statement. Please do not repost unkind comments about people based on their weight or looks. I stand behind that.

Also, I will alter my comment from my defense of the book itself. Although I most strenuously disagree that the content is in any way inappropriate, I understand that you do think that. However, I am thrilled that scholastic has chosen to carry this book and to think that it has the potential to be in the hands of many more readers. This is the age of the necessary rallying cry of “We need diverse books” and I am so happy to see scholastic doing their part to add to the complexity of childhood, their stated diversity goal and to continue to encourage the broadening of children’s literature.

 

[27lw]

Yes, I wish some Catholic publishers had a school outreach program. I don’t like it that our Catholic school offers (only) Scholastic.

 

[Anglewannabe]

Although I most strenuously disagree that the content is in any way inappropriate, I understand that you do think that. However, I am thrilled that scholastic has chosen to carry this book and to think that it has the potential to be in the hands of many more readers. This is the age of the necessary rallying cry of “We need diverse books” and I am so happy to see scholastic doing their part to add to the complexity of childhood, their stated diversity goal and to continue to encourage the broadening of children’s literature.

Huh? God created us male and female and it is not good to but unhealthy ideas in children’s heads. Kids need to be taught right from wrong

 

[JimG]

There are a great many children’s books available. I would not myself recommend giving a child a book which presents a false view of human nature. Boys are boys and girls are girls. They will grow into men and women. It is not possible for a boy to change into a girl, so I would not wish to put that idea into his mind.

 

[Allegra]

It is a lovely, compelling book with well written and fully realized characters. Have you read the book yourself? I am assuming not. I find it utterly unacceptable when people criticize books without having read them generously, with an open mind. This generosity has extended to the many, many Catholic tomes that have gifted to me by in-laws. I feel I have benefited from this open hearted approach and I strongly encourage you to approach “George” in a similar manner.

Also, please do not describe the author as “fat” or “fellow”. Both are dismissive and unkind terms. Surely you do not need to use ugly and derogatory words to describe someone who presents ideas different from your own.

The poster isn’t even the one who wrote that description. That being said, I get why it’s mean to call someone “fat”, but what the heck is wrong with “fellow”? Anyway, the complaint isn’t about how well the book is written, but the agenda behind it.

 

[Rosebud77]

The poster isn’t even the one who wrote that description. That being said, I get why it’s mean to call someone “fat”, but what the heck is wrong with “fellow”? Anyway, the complaint isn’t about how well the book is written, but the agenda behind it.

Thank you

 

[JimG]

I only quoted an excerpt of Mr. Esolen’s essay. The entire piece makes his objective pretty clear. To add another excerpt from the essay: “But no ordinary father is going to push sexual confusion on his son, just as he would not push heroin or anything else that was destructive. That is where schools come in.”