Gay characters no hit in kiddie lit; `The Trouble With Babies' is latest example

The Charlotte Observer (registration required) ^ | 1/4/03 | JOSH GETLIN - Los Angeles Times

[Huber]

Censorship or the market speaking?

[Support Free Republic]

	Linda Carter is completely unrelated to Free Republic. But if I am going to have to post donation begs until the Freepathon is over, I'm going to occasionally post something I want! And there is only one way you can stop me!

[SamAdams76]

The gratuitious insertion of homosexual characters into children's books as a shallow nod to "diversity" and a lame effort to establish oneself as "sensitive" and "politically correct" has apparently backfired on this clueless author.

[BlessedBeGod]

"For some readers, the mere use of the word `gay' is inappropriate, and they can't separate the word from the idea of sex,"

Well, duh! What do you think it has to do with?

[kitkat]

***"For some readers, the mere use of the word `gay' is inappropriate, and they can't separate the word from the idea of sex," ***

Two gay men living together with an adopted child. And we're not supposed to think of sex.

When you come across these books in a school or a library, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN. It's obviously working.

[Houmatt]

Clueless, indeed. I mean, let's look at the situation point by point:

1) First book mentions homosexual couple. It sells, but not without controversy.

2) Second book sells poorly, due to second mention of homosexual couple, as specifically cited by publisher.

3) Quandary: Do you

a) Eliminate said couple and risk selling more books?

OR

b) Keep said couple and sell less books and risk losing your contract with your publisher?

It is not rocket science, friends.

[Huber]

"For some readers, the mere use of the word `gay' is inappropriate, and they can't separate the word from the idea of sex," Well, duh! What do you think it has to do with?

Families, and commitment, and why can't we all just accept each other the way we are without imposing archaic superstition-based value systems that get in our way of achieving a more enlightened lifestyle, of course. /sarcasm

[Houmatt]

"For some readers, the mere use of the word `gay' is inappropriate, and they can't separate the word from the idea of sex," said Mary Cash, Holiday House's executive editor.

And why do you think that is? You don't that's because (gasp!) that's what being "gay" is about?

It seems it is not just the author who is in dire need of a clue.

[Huber]

I guess it depends on which is more important to the author; taking a stand on "principle", advocating normalization of the gay lifestyle, or commercial success and reaching a broader audience.

That the author does not have conservative principles is indicated by her lack of understanding why this is an issue.

[VOA]

The writer has gotten a bit of a shock (thankfully). I heard her in an
interview last week.
She was really ticked at the "censorship", that is, the loss of what she
presumed was an automatic entitlement program. She seemed to think that her book
was supposed to automatically be bought by lots of libraries.
OOPS!
But of course, when a lefty book/movie doesn't sell, it's "censorship".
If a right-wing book/movie doesn't sell, it's because "American celebrates tolerance
and votes against 'hate'".

She angrily responded that she felt like adding MORE gay characters to her next books.
To which I say "You Go, Girl"...and thus her books while available, will be in
less and less libraries.

I guess she hasn't seen the latest poll (as cited on The Michael Medved Show) that reveals
the mounting backlass to The Gay Nazis. The poll showed, in contrast to many
previous polls, more Americans (something like 46%) now favor making homosexual activity
ILLEGAL (with 41% oppossed).
Even Medved was shocked at this (very under-reported) sea-change.

[gershwingirl]

Exactly. I happened to be in SF this week and read an article in the Chron howling about the "censorship" of this book.

But censorship is when an author is forbidden to publish or offer for sale a particular work or part of it. The refusal of potential customers to buy the work is not censorship.

In the US, nobody can prevent you from publishing anything you want - but nobody can force anybody else to buy it, either!

[machman]

Exactly.

Its amazing how many "authors" don't understand a thing about censorship. Censoring is prefectly fine, as long as the GOVERNMENT doesn't do it. I censor stuff all the time, by choosing what comes into my house and doesn't. This "author" has no "right" that I, or anybody else, buy her book. And these people seemed to be shocked that parents acutally determine what their pre-teen kids read (I really think they believe that decision should be left up to the publik skoolz)

And she's perfectly free to add as much "diversity" to the charaters in her books from her community. While she's at it, she should add some pedophiles, murderers, neonazi's, gangbangers, etc. and see how many copies she she sells of a "children's" book.

[pabianice]

That f)*^&%g free market! How dare it decide which businesses succeed and which fail! If Liberals were in power, they'd certainly put an end to that!

[FreedomPoster]

>>Censorship or the market speaking?

>>>But censorship is when an author is forbidden to publish or offer for sale a particular work or part of it. The refusal of potential customers to buy the work is not censorship.

Worth expanding on and clarifying - censorship is when *the government* forbids publishing or sale of a particular work. And uses the police power of government (i.e. at the point of a gun) to do so.

Lefties are really dense on this issue, no matter how many times it is explained to them with really small words and clear examples. I know, from discussions on this with Lefties I engage on a neutral board, regarding the Dixie Chicks idiocy.

[ClearCase_guy]

But after 38 years of battles with parents and other critics over library books, she added: "You get to the point where you can't win every confrontation. The reality is, the parents who objected to this book would have taken this to our school board, and I would have been overridden. I only have so much energy for these fights."

But why even consider fighting? The book is not what the parents want. That's clear. Yet, it is what the Librarian wants and (sometimes) is willing to fight for. Why?

Indoctrination. They've got an agenda, and they want to force it on people, even if the public resists. They just try to smart about picking their fights. Scum.

[SkyPilot]

and the reference to those fathers was strictly in the background, to show you the kind of people who live on a city block."

Baloney!

Hey--I used to have a convicted rapist, an arsonist, and a heroine addict on my block when I lived in Cambridge Mass. They don't belong in children's books. She was pusing for "normalcy" of a deviant lifestyle, and she is pi$$ed she got called on it.

[No Truce With Kings]

"Part of me is tempted to put in even more gay characters, because these are my stories and I really don't like being censored," she said. "But I write books at home to earn money and send my three kids to school. My future earnings could be hurt if I keep these two gay characters in the plot. So what should I do?"

Well, hon, it's like this. You just heard the market speaking. I have a second income as a writer. There are a lot of stories I would like to write that I do not, because they DO NOT SELL. I could write them if I wish to, but I ain't gonna get no dough. So, I write what the marketplace wants.

My recommendation for you, since you have not yet been able to figure that out, is to be true to your artistic sensitivity, and make the elements that make your books unattractive even more prominent. Then you can sell even fewer books, and with luck, starve to death. Natural selection will have cleaned the shallow end of the gene pool once again.

Either that, or get smart and use the clue that the marketplace has just handed you.

[Huber]

I suppose that it would be too kind to assume that she had in mind the same general literary effect that Charles Dickens had in including pickpockets, convicts and guillotine wielding revolutionaries in his works?

[SkyPilot]

Dickens was wrote social satire on labor laws, orphanages, and poverty. There is a big difference from that and trying to expose children to people who engage in homosexual sodomy.

[ClearCase_guy]

Dickens was not attempting to say that every neighborhood has pickpockets, convicts and guillotine wielding revolutionaries and that they are a normal part of everyday life, so we should not judge them. His message was different.