(no subject)

[conuly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/education/young-latino-students-dont-see-themselves-in-books.html

This is an article basically decrying the lack of diversity in kidlit. It is apparently especially bad with regards to Hispanics. And even when books technically exist, there is no guarantee that families will easily be able to find those books. Not knowing specific titles and authors to look for (and having to ask for them to be specially ordered at the bookstore or library) can be a big barrier for any child.

Framing this article is a logical argument that runs pretty much like this:

1. Many children - and for that matter, many adults! - like to read books where they can easily identify with the protagonists.
2. Children need to practice a lot to learn a new skill. They need to read often, for long periods of time, to become fluent readers.
3. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the lack of any real Hispanic in children's literature is a turnoff for many Hispanic children (especially those who already have trouble learning to read English, perhaps because it is not their home language), and makes them less eager to read. This, in turn, is not doing their reading skills a favor.
4. So it is important for publishers and booksellers to make a more diverse range of protagonists available to children.

This is fairly straightforward, right? I should know better than to ever glance at the comments to any article, but I confess, I'm filled with morbid curiosity regarding them.

The comments reinforced my notion that the people most likely to loudly trumpet their reading comprehension skills are the ones who most lack any such thing. From that simple proposition they widely got the impression that third grade teachers want to burn every "classic" book ever authored and not allow high schoolers to read Shakespeare. Also, it's acceptable to ask children who cannot read Spanish to any level of fluency to just wait until they are old enough to read Don Quixote in the original, because it is positively anathema to provide English language books for children that don't feature whites. (Then again, these people might just be against new publications on general principle. Few of them seem to have read any children's books published in the last half a century.) Several people commented with nostalgic approval about the good old days of whites-only Dick and Jane, those days when every child learned to read, even Johnny. If they're old enough to have learned from those basals they're presumably old enough to know better, but apparently not.

And of course, there is the ever popular rallying cry of "let's be colorblind". Advocating for a greater diversity in protagonists is racist because good books are accessible to every reader and apparently it's impossible for a good book to not prominently feature white children. Children don't see race until we teach them to, and providing books with nonwhite protagonists just teaches them to see race. Asians do well in school despite there being few books with Asian protagonists and therefore we shouldn't even consider changing a thing because the only thing that matters about kidlit is how well kids do in school, and it's insulting to suggest some children might do better if they had an easy hook. This total lack of diversity worked for ME, so it ought to be good enough for everybody. (Nevermind that a highly motivated reader is going to need less encouragement in general!) If parents care, they should just teach their children themselves (after school, natch, because homeschooling isn't the answer) and order books online. This presupposes that these parents have Internet access and time in the first place, but if you're not willing to give up your family time for this you're just an awful human being.

I tell you, sometimes it's delightful to find out what the Internet-connected public thinks. Usually it's not, but I try to amuse myself.

Edit: you know, it's the hypocrisy that gets me. These are people criticizing teachers for daring to suggest that children might like to, occasionally, read books about kids like themselves. First they say that no, kids should read about people different from them (which means that the preponderance of white characters is harmful to white kids, yes? How is this any better?) and then they inevitably rattle off a list of Good Books they think all kids should read.

Several hundred comments, and a handful of books listed. For all this talk about reading good books, to read these comments you'd think quality children's literature was limited to seven titles.

Maybe that's why they can't comprehend the concept of adding to the library. They aren't actually very well-read, at least not in this area. It's sad, it really is.

Comments

[marveen.livejournal.com]

My .02 on the identifying-with-the-protagonist theme:

I've read a number of books, more often children's than otherwise, that simply didn't specify race. The viewpoint character didn't spend time staring into mirrors, reflecting morosely on their own appearance, or describing themselves in narcissistic detail.

Maybe we need more of those kind of books, the one-size-fits-all protagonist. *shrug* I don't have a dog in this fight, so it's of purely academic interest.

[conuly]

I don't know many books that never have any description of the main character nor family members. Even esteemed classics of children's literature usually break out a paragraph to describe hair color or something.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

True, but I do remember some--a couple in particular, since they were written in first-person and of course I spent most of the book imagining the protagonist as much like myself. Late in the books, the narratives finally revealed that the main character was a BOY, kind of derailing my train of thought right off the tracks with a "...wait, what?"