CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Lucky Children's responses
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Linnea Hendrickson <Lhendr>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:46:13 -0700
I read the opening 2 or 3 pages of Lucky to a third grade class this afternoon. I prefaced the reading by saying this was this year's Newbery award winner, and that it also was the subject of a front page article in the New York Times over the weekend because some people had objected to something in the first couple of pages. I told them I would read the beginning of the book to them, and for them to listen very carefully to see if they could figure out what was objected to. I did give them a little background on Lucky and AA, and Hard Pan so they'd have a little context.
I read from the beginning through the snakebite sentence, and although I shot a glance out over the room, no one giggled or reacted in any way. I read a a couple of paragraphs more, then asked if anyone had any idea yet. Like Monica's students, a couple of children suggested the drinking and smoking as objectionable.
So, I told them that it was the part about the dog being bitten on the scrotum, which was a part of male mammal anatomy. They looked at me rather incredulously, like why would anyone object to that?
Then I read a bit more, and at the second mention of the incident, where it talks about the dog being bitten in a most sensitive place, some of them giggled.
I finished Sammy's story about Roy, and the kids didn't want to hear any more, even though I gave them a bit of a synopsis of the basic situation of the story. Actually, as I read about Sammy being dead drunk, I began to feel uncomfortable reading this to third-graders -- more uncomfortable than reading the word "scrotum." I've been thinking all the rest of the afternoon about why this book is over the heads of third graders. Although I hesitate to generalize about age groups (I had some excellent readers in this group, and some very sharp students), I think that developmentally the book is more suited to slightly older students -- 4th and maybe even better 5th or 6th graders. Part of it is the structure of the book -- the movement back and forth between Sammy's story and Lucky's listening, and her thoughts as she listens, which makes the story much more reflective than plot-driven. Awareness of the complexities of the adult world at the level presented here is, I think, beyond the developmental level of most third graders. Perhaps they are not yet able to move that far beyond themselves. I think interest in issues of the adult world increases as they become 4th and 5th and 6th graders. Indeed, Patron has said that she wrote the book for the 10-year-old inside of her.
Next step is to try this out on some older kids, or give it to their teachers to read. I'm cross-posting this to the Child_lit list. Apologies to those on both lists.
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:46:13 -0700
I read the opening 2 or 3 pages of Lucky to a third grade class this afternoon. I prefaced the reading by saying this was this year's Newbery award winner, and that it also was the subject of a front page article in the New York Times over the weekend because some people had objected to something in the first couple of pages. I told them I would read the beginning of the book to them, and for them to listen very carefully to see if they could figure out what was objected to. I did give them a little background on Lucky and AA, and Hard Pan so they'd have a little context.
I read from the beginning through the snakebite sentence, and although I shot a glance out over the room, no one giggled or reacted in any way. I read a a couple of paragraphs more, then asked if anyone had any idea yet. Like Monica's students, a couple of children suggested the drinking and smoking as objectionable.
So, I told them that it was the part about the dog being bitten on the scrotum, which was a part of male mammal anatomy. They looked at me rather incredulously, like why would anyone object to that?
Then I read a bit more, and at the second mention of the incident, where it talks about the dog being bitten in a most sensitive place, some of them giggled.
I finished Sammy's story about Roy, and the kids didn't want to hear any more, even though I gave them a bit of a synopsis of the basic situation of the story. Actually, as I read about Sammy being dead drunk, I began to feel uncomfortable reading this to third-graders -- more uncomfortable than reading the word "scrotum." I've been thinking all the rest of the afternoon about why this book is over the heads of third graders. Although I hesitate to generalize about age groups (I had some excellent readers in this group, and some very sharp students), I think that developmentally the book is more suited to slightly older students -- 4th and maybe even better 5th or 6th graders. Part of it is the structure of the book -- the movement back and forth between Sammy's story and Lucky's listening, and her thoughts as she listens, which makes the story much more reflective than plot-driven. Awareness of the complexities of the adult world at the level presented here is, I think, beyond the developmental level of most third graders. Perhaps they are not yet able to move that far beyond themselves. I think interest in issues of the adult world increases as they become 4th and 5th and 6th graders. Indeed, Patron has said that she wrote the book for the 10-year-old inside of her.
Next step is to try this out on some older kids, or give it to their teachers to read. I'm cross-posting this to the Child_lit list. Apologies to those on both lists.
-- Linnea Linnea Hendrickson Albuquerque, NM Lhendr at unm.edu http://www.unm.edu/~lhendrReceived on Tue 20 Feb 2007 09:46:13 PM CST
