This really chives my spuds, and I want your opinion

[Bravo 21]

First: Chives my spuds is not the term i will use when I am unhappy with something.
Second: I would not recommend A Song of Fire and Ice for my eleven year old brother, but you know what, fuck that, if that gets them reading, they should go right ahead.
Also, if my brother takes the next 6th book before I can read it, there will be "words"

 

[FernandoV]

The librarian probably thought the child's parent wouldn't like him having it. I'm not saying the parent is always right but, hey, she was justified in assuming that and not letting him check it out on that assumption.

 

[SimpleJack]

when I was done I thought "That's it? I've seen worse searching for 'tomatoes' on google."

I immediately went to search tomatoes on google to see if you were joking or not...

 

[lovest harding]

I read Ghost Girl by Tory L. Hayden (http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Girl-Story-Child-Teacher/dp/038071681X) around that age.
That story was haunting. But it's a stunningly real book. I mean, that book gets into some horrid details on sexual abuse to children (including a mention of sexual abuse to a baby). And I checked that book out from my middle school library in 5th or 6th grade.

I'm sort of rambling. I guess I mean that this person has no right to stop the kid from reading it. That would be the parents responsibility. If they choose to not watch what he's reading or choose to let him read a book like that, then he's fine.

This reminds me of when they removed a book from my local library because it was about gay penguins and someone complained about it. Isn't the point of a library to share knowledge? Why do they seem to be so hell bent on stopping perfectly fine books from being checked out when one person has an issue with it? It doesn't make any sense to me why all the options shouldn't be allowed. I guess it's more of the parents wanting everyone else to raise their children (which seems to be popular nowadays).

The librarian probably thought the child's parent wouldn't like him having it. I'm not saying the parent is always right but, hey, she was justified in assuming that and not letting him check it out on that assumption.

But that's not the librarian's assumption or decision to make. The librarian can assume all they like about it, but it's the parent's responsibility. If they're not (as I said) watching what he reads or are okay with him reading it, that's entirely up to them. It's not up to a librarian running off assumptions.

 

[Mosesj]

Yes, I undersand that "chives my spuds" is not an actaul term, but if I keep saying it, it'll become in like Bob.

So a few weeks back, I was at the library, reading a book. I don't remember what it was, although I know it was generic and boring. And there was a kid, 11 or 12, trying to check out Storm of Swords. Which is book 3 in the Song of Fire and Ice if you didn't know. In which case I feel sorry for you. Anyway, checkout human being of some gender or other was giving him a really hard time about it. Which is understandable, because of all the sex and violence and such. But heres what chives my spuds: I was around his age when I read the first book. I liked it, got it, read the other books, diligently awaited the next books. WONDER! So you can see why it would get me a bit irritated. But I can also see where she's coming from. So... OPINIONS! What do YOU think? BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO MATTERS!

EDIT: A few people seem to think that it was library policy. It wasn't.

oh come on, it can't be as bad as henry the wolfman, could it? (that book needs a very big warning attached to it because of it's machoism)

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

when I was done I thought "That's it? I've seen worse searching for 'tomatoes' on google."

I immediately went to search tomatoes on google to see if you were joking or not...

I was joking, though I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Dark Knifer]

The librarian probably thought the child's parent wouldn't like him having it. I'm not saying the parent is always right but, hey, she was justified in assuming that and not letting him check it out on that assumption.

But that's not the librarian's assumption or decision to make. The librarian can assume all they like about it, but it's the parent's responsibility. If they're not (as I said) watching what he reads or are okay with him reading it, that's entirely up to them. It's not up to a librarian running off assumptions.

I think it's more of a fear parents getting angry and trying to sue her. Crazier things have happened...

 

[lovest harding]

The librarian probably thought the child's parent wouldn't like him having it. I'm not saying the parent is always right but, hey, she was justified in assuming that and not letting him check it out on that assumption.

But that's not the librarian's assumption or decision to make. The librarian can assume all they like about it, but it's the parent's responsibility. If they're not (as I said) watching what he reads or are okay with him reading it, that's entirely up to them. It's not up to a librarian running off assumptions.

I think it's more of a fear parents getting angry and trying to sue her. Crazier things have happened...

For what? Endangering a child? There's no law that I know that would back up a law suit over a child checking out a book (and there are certainly no laws that I know of that prevent a child checking out or reading that book).
In any case, it's still not her (did it say the person was a girl in the OP, maybe I just missed it) place to pick and choose who can check out what. If she was that concerned she could have called the parents.
In my opinion, though, she should have checked him out without saying a word. She had no right under any circumstances to dictate what he checks out and reads.
It would be like if I sat in a restaurant and told a child at the next table to sit down and behave. Sure, the parents might want their child to sit down and behave (as well as everyone else in the restaurant), but I had no right to confront someone else's child.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

chives my spuds

I just want you to know, I hate you with all of my hate for this phrase. I want to destroy you.

also, stupid librarian is stupid

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

11/12? Let him read what he wants, he's already watching porn.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i suppose they'd rather we all read the Bible.
no sex and violence in THERE!
just wholesome family values.
ee-yup.

 

[SquirePB]

I say good on the kid not only for being in to reading, but for reading some relatively advanced stuff. I'm gonna grab the books off a mate as soon as my exams finish this semester and rig up my hammock in a nice sunny spot and just have a nice long read. Haven't been able to do that in a while... damn uni.

 

[OutcastBOS]

i suppose they'd rather we all read the Bible.
no sex and violence in THERE!
just wholesome family values.
ee-yup.

Not even any incest or torture! Totally good read.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Wait. Wait. Wait. A kid, in this day and age, that wanted to read?...A book?!...That wasn't Harry Potter?!!! GIVE HIM THE GODDAMN BOOK!!!

 

[JoJo]

My opinion goes against the general flow here, some books just aren't suitable for younger children. Since I haven't read the book in question I can't make a judgement in this situation but it's worth remembering children are still developing a sense of morality and are programmed to imitate people they regard as cool, smart or popular, so some restraint needs to be held until they reach their teen years.

 

[TeapartyTokyo]

Yes this bothers me a lot! I used to work part-time in a bookshop for some years and this happens very often. It's just shocking to find this behavious when books, of all things, are concerned. Parents want their kids to read, just not something that might expose them to violence or sex.
It's as if they think that just because someone is shown something, they will try to act it out. It's ridiculous. Just like you I read books for grown-ups long before middle school, and I turned out just fine

People forget so quickly how smart and perceptive they really were when they were young...

 

[Politi]

Clegane]

Yes, I undersand that "chives my spuds" is not an actaul term, but if I keep saying it,

If only it was. A man can dream though, a man can dream.

Also Storm of Swords is bare good, people should read it.

I'm on A Clash of Kings ;D

I've read all five books twice.
Problem, new readers? >:3

In actual seriousness though, if the boy was ten, I don't think I'd let him jump into something like Game of Thrones right away, when you start getting into the incest and rape and murder, it's a little heavy for a kid that young. It's the parent's call though, not the library's. Besides, the political intrigues and the huge cast of characters in the later books will probably just leave someone that young bored and confused. There are always exceptions to the rule in any age group though. Who knows?

 

[Batou667]

If the kid was trying to borrow The Joy of Sex or Mein Kampf, fair enough, point him in the direction of Junior Fiction instead.

But the fact that this book was Part 3 - and presumably he's read and enjoyed the previous two with no ill-effects - suggests to me that the young feller knew exactly what he doing. Give him some credit, be thankful he isn't keying your car or sniffing glue in a back-alley, and let him read the damn book.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i suppose they'd rather we all read the Bible.
no sex and violence in THERE!
just wholesome family values.
ee-yup.

Not even any incest or torture! Totally good read.

hey now, that doesnt make it bad.
in fact, The Blasphemer's Bible is one of my new favourite webcomics!