I think you do have the right to determine at what age you teach your kids about homosexuality.

What on earth do rights have to do with it? I'm talking about reality. I'd have loved to shield my daughter from the existence of Ronald Reagan, but the minute she saw a newspaper, there he was. If I tell her he's not real, I'm a liar, she'll figure that out pretty soon on her own, and then there we are, with a kid who knows you're full of crap and not being truthful with them.

Teaching them what I believe? Yes and yes and yes. Putting my hands over their eyes and gasping in shock because what I'd like them to believe isn't going to stand the barrage of information from the outside world?

I repeat my choice of word: futile.

My mother had to do that a lot when I was in school, Betsy. I was really young when we started having the "Even People in Charge Can Be Stupid Sometimes," conversation.

Most libraries ( public and school) use community standards as part of the process. Most libraries can get books out of other libraries fairly easily - so if there is a segment out side the usual there is an option.

I am guessing king and king shouldn't be in a large number of school libraries. Mostly because of the age it seems to be for. But I am also guessing there are school libraries where it should be.

I believe in community standards as part of the criteria for school and public libraries. I think libraries should have the broadest possible standards for the community but library dollars are based on use.

Double post due to cat stepping on keyboard.

I think Wolfram is right - a storybook is different than a newspaper article. Which has more impact ~ well that depends. I can't ever really thinking that stories were the same as real life. So for me the news ( which was very serious in my parents house - actually still is) would have made more of an impact, because it was real. If this book really is a fairy tale ( I just put it on hold- will report after I read) I t probbably wouldn't have pinged the lesson of boy/boy is ok. I would have gotten the greater lesson of - not everyone is the same and not everything turns out as expected, but that can be ok.

I think Wolfram is right - a storybook is different than a newspaper article.

I was responding specifically to the "I have the right to determine the age at which I discuss this with my children" comment. My point is that standing on your rights is very often futile, because whether you hunt for the information (as in, checking out a library book) or whether it's there in the real world (a kid goes to school, he/she is going to converse with other children at the very least and there will be information or misinformation spread between them), your rights, as you may perceive them, go down the tubes in the face of reality intruding on the parent-child relationship.

A few years ago, I got reamed by a school counselor because my then eight-year-old son and another child got caught talking about the "kids with guns" while at school. This was after Columbine. When questioned, Jake said it upset him and scared him to think about such a thing happening. She wanted to know why we would "let him watch the news" or stories about what happened, and I told her we hadn't. We'd discussed it in very general terms when he asked us about it, but he rode the bus with eleven- and twelve-year-olds who very graphically described what (they thought/imagined/heard) had happened.

Once yor child is in any kind of school, your chances of bringing up every possibly delicate subject exactly when and how you want to pretty fly out the window.

I was surprised that Judy Blume has been replaced by Phyllys Reynolds Naylor on the challenged books list. Poor Judy must be considered passe now. :-)

Another from me since the baby's actually happily batting at shiny! things in her bouncy seat.

What distresses me more about children's books was really beautifully exemplified at the book fair at the elementary school last night. Looked like a licensing warehouse had exploded in the gym. Amid the few copies of actual original titles were SpongeBob books, Wild Thornberrys books, SpyKids books, books based on Matt Steele (which as far as I know is a toy), et cetera, et cetera.

I get encouraging children to read. But there are so many inventive, funny, meaningful, thought-provoking books out there, the character tie-ins just make me nauseous. It's not just the commercialism, either; they're horrible books. Slapdash, no style. Sad.

Don't shop for kids' books at Barnes and Noble. Their kids' book sections leans heavy on the tie-ins with toys, very light on the actual books.

now I have another task -- I have to go to the children's section of the bookstore. Because we do have some tie-in book s( like pokemon) and lots of series books the library has lots of better books to. I never looked at the kids section at the book store ...now I have to .

Our Barnes and Noble is actually pretty good when it comes to the kids' department (they seem to have a decent buyer, and they feature lots of kids' reading groups, and author appearances), but the best store I know for kids' books (or any books, really) is the huge independent store near my parents, about an hour from here. My favorite place in the world. They have everything. I worked there once for about six weeks and they simply recycled my paycheck.

This was the Scholastic Book Fair held at school every year, last night. What killed me, too, was the number of non-book items offered. Toys, even, not just beading kits and mini science sets. Blech.