Antenora
Detriment Deleter
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on Jan 9, 2005 18:00:29 GMT -5
Ok this is it-- I've never heard of the book, but I would imagine that it is in sync with many of our convictions. However, that is most definitely targeted towards adults, rather than children. . I'm not entirely sure, but from what I've heard it's really targeted toward children. I supplied a link to the entire text, and I suggest you read it(you can ignore the liberal blogger's comments). (There's also a sort of equal and opposite counterpart to Liberals Under My Bed; it's called No, George, No! The Re-Parenting of George W. Bush, just in case you're curious) And I'm sorry for getting angry. I would just like to know what your religious views are so I can better understand why the references to all those different gods offended you.
|
|
|
Post by The Wicker Man on Jan 12, 2005 20:41:13 GMT -5
Ok this is it--. If Handler is going to put out children's books, it his his responsibility to make sure that they are suitable. Here we have in a nutshell my issue with your argument. "Suitable" is a subjective phrase. Handler has absolutely no responsibility to live up to any one individual's idea of "suitable." Handler can write anything he wants, but someone has to publish it. Harper Collins has weighed all of the issues we're debating and has made the judgment call that Handler's work is suitable for children. That does not mean that everyone will agree with that judgement, nor does it mean that children's literature must be devoid of any challenging material to protect the minds of children you seem to think are so fragile. It is YOUR JOB as a parent to try to keep material you find inappropriate out of their hands, and the best parents would talk honestly with them about the reasons why, rather than answer with a glib "because I said so." Obviously forbidding something is the best way to encourage it....that's why education and understanding is key. Do you understand where I'm coming from here? Your thoughts on this issue, just like mine, are opinions. If Handler's material is as inappropriate as you seem to feel, there would be a huge backlash against him and the publisher and he would be effectively silenced as a children's author. I don't see that happening, so society must find something of value in his work for the moment. However, this can easily dovetail into a discussion of ethics and morals in modern society and I'd rather avoid that. Suffice it to say that I respect your beliefs and opinions, but they do not give you the right to decide what is appropriate for the masses, only for yourself and your immediate family.
|
|
Antenora
Detriment Deleter
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on Jan 13, 2005 8:22:40 GMT -5
I agree with everything you said there--"suitable for children" is a subjective term. Furthermore, what's appropriate for one child may be unsuitable for another, even if the children are of the same age. Children mature at different rates, so it's hard to say for sure whether a particular book is appropriate or inappropriate for children of a certain age.
However, as Orangey stated earlier, she's not actually a parent. (But your advice about dealing with "inappropriate" books is still valid)
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Jan 13, 2005 15:49:34 GMT -5
Also: What is wrong with people expressing their political views, even if they might be opposite what a child is taught from their parents?
|
|
|
Post by The Wicker Man on Jan 14, 2005 4:58:56 GMT -5
However, as Orangey stated earlier, she's not actually a parent. (But your advice about dealing with "inappropriate" books is still valid) Yes, I did see that she's not a parent. I'm simply trying to show the respect for her beliefs to the limit that I believe she should be allowed to enforce them-- to her own (hypothetical) children.
|
|
|
Post by Libitina on Jan 14, 2005 14:40:03 GMT -5
Wasn't this thread over and done with . .. ?
|
|
|
Post by LenoreSnicket on Jan 16, 2005 17:00:04 GMT -5
I agree that he's not forcing them. It's one thing if he writes "Bush and Cheney are idiots." But it's quite another if he makes a harmless pun. Besides, kiddies don't pick up half the references and aludes to things that adults do. They're his books, and he can put whatever he wants in them.
|
|
|
Post by The Wicker Man on Jan 18, 2005 20:29:21 GMT -5
Wasn't this thread over and done with . .. ? Not if new issues are brought up, which they were in some of the "parting" words. Have a mod lock it if you don't want to continue the discusson.
|
|
no-one
Reptile Researcher
Posts: 28
Likes: 1
|
Post by no-one on Jan 19, 2005 5:56:29 GMT -5
Wasn't this thread over and done with . .. ? you can stop posting in it if you want... but you can't stop other people posting here... if you ignore them long enough they will go away... you're probably good at that...
|
|
|
Post by Libitina on Jan 26, 2005 13:46:12 GMT -5
I'm not responding to any posts as of late here but I just learned something that Mr. Handler might be amused to know.
HarperCollins is owned by the same company that owns FoxNews. True Blue! Eat your heart out, Ted Turner.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 28, 2005 11:48:06 GMT -5
I once made a connection between the fire-extinguishing side of the schism and the opponents of George Bush's politics, but I can't remember the specifics now. If I remember it, I'll post it.
But the summary of it was something like this: If you agree with the Baudelaires' morals, you shouldn't be supporting Bush.
But as I say, I cannot for the life of me remember the details; I think it was more than a year ago that I came up with it...
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jan 28, 2005 12:34:25 GMT -5
I only connected that one Bush remark (not all other remarks about the supposed evils of our world) with Bush. Then again perhaps I'm naive, or maybe someone needs to reread TVV (the jumping to conclusions chapter) again. I think all the other remarks are against what Handler disagrees with not necessarily all against a certain person (Bush). I'd be careful giving Handler that label because that's something he himself should declare not the other way around. Handler may be outspoken but he hasn't readily become the next Michael Moore-- let him out himself if indeed all these theories are actually correct. Also if it turns out this entire series is about the wrongs of Bush remember Fernald from TGG which if interpreted in that light is also a warning to people who don't support Bush. You may think you know the truth but you certainly don't know the entire story. Again, see the jumping to conclusions chapter in TVV. I think I said Bush because I didn't want to generalise against Republicans or the original Bush administration. But yes, there's certainly something to what you say, and I'll always pay keen attention to any interpretation of Fernald's ideas. I need to re-read TVV again too. Unfortunately, I'm bogged down in David Copperfield at the moment. It's rather boring, but I'm too far in to stop reading it.
|
|
|
Post by Libitina on Jan 28, 2005 14:30:36 GMT -5
I'm not saying that Handler can't write what he wants to. It's a free country and I am a First Amendment advocate. I just think that he should be aware of his audience and not try to stir up trouble.
Besides, if the young kids who read the books don't get it, what's the point of putting it in (besides letting people like us argue over it).
As far as supporting the morals of the Baudelaires and President Bush: from what I have seen, the Baudelaires live by a code of ethics that seens to be pretty similar to that of our president. I am a strong believer in the Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was founded, as is virtually every conservative in America. I think I recall seeing an interview which said that the Baudelaires are Jewish. So, it is in this way that supporting President Bush and subscribing to the ethics of the Baudelaires is logical.
|
|
|
Post by RockSunner on Jan 28, 2005 18:23:51 GMT -5
I too was not amused by the "Busheney" reference. It's political name-calling of the worst sort. It's also anachronistic and it hurts the suspension of disbelief in the work, if this was all supposed to take place long ago,
I defend his right to say it, and I don't subscribe to the "what about the children?" school of vetting children's books, but I was definitely annoyed.
|
|
|
Post by The Wicker Man on Jan 29, 2005 0:03:23 GMT -5
Besides, if the young kids who read the books don't get it, what's the point of putting it in (besides letting people like us argue over it). It's there for the adults that might be reading. This is not a new concept... even Looney Tunes and Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons were rife with references (some quite risque) that shot well over the heads of the children watching it, and were meant to only be caught by the adults. the Baudelaires live by a code of ethics that seens to be pretty similar to that of our president this is not the forum for that particular hot potato, but suffice it to say that the President's ethics (not his public facade, but his REAL ethics) are a hotly debated topic the world over. I'm not even going to touch it, but you're entitled to your beliefs. I think I recall seeing an interview which said that the Baudelaires are Jewish. So, it is in this way that supporting President Bush and subscribing to the ethics of the Baudelaires is logical. That is a textbook example of a logical fallacy, and a drastic oversimplification at best. It is not necessary that one be a Bush supporter to be an ethical and just person. I too was not amused by the "Busheney" reference. It's political name-calling of the worst sort. Oh dear..."of the worst sort"? Listen to ANY campaign rhetoric, including Bush's own, before making such melodramatic statements. It doesn't even rate a raised eyebrow. It's also anachronistic and it hurts the suspension of disbelief in the work, if this was all supposed to take place long ago, The books take place in no fixed time or place and are anachronistic by nature, so that assumption doesn't hold any weight. However, I will agree that making real world references somewhat undermines the fantasy world Handler has created. I defend his right to say it, and I don't subscribe to the "what about the children?" school of vetting children's books, but I was definitely annoyed. And you have every right to be annoyed. I'm glad you at least realize the limits of those rights. I merely have issue with those who would try to legislate their beliefs in order to make them mandatory for all.
|
|