Not to beat a dead horse, but Diane chimes in over at SLJ on the Beck/Bell boys/girls affair and brings the discussion back to Bell's book. She loved the book and writes:
I welcome the discussion of the interview. I just want to point out that you cannot judge this book on your notions of what is "acceptable" boy psychological theory or antiPC stances unless you read it. Once you have, then we can chat in more detail.
As I wrote over there and will repeat now, this discussion was never about the book. It's about what Glenn Beck and Ted Bell discussed in the interview. Beck said current YA books emasculate teen boys and they do that by not allowing the boy to be the hero. Boys NEED to be the hero was the man's point and just as significantly, he liked that the girl did not rescue anyone in Bell's book. As I commented at Diane's post, it might be fine for this book that the girl didn't do rescuing (she is only 6) but Beck and Bell were far beyond this one book - they were talking about what books boys need, period. I don't need to write about Bell's book for this discussion, because honestly I don't think his book is the point. I thought I made that clear in my earlier posts last week, but if not - please don't think I have a problem with Ted Bell's novel. I don't; I haven't read the book. I have a problem with what Ted Bell said (or didn't say) in his discussion with Glenn Beck.
Moving on now......
