Warning on Molly Mystery.

Thanks, Kim!

I went ahead and sent an e-mail; I'll also follow up with a snail mail if they don't write back. If anyone wants to read it, let me know. It's basically just what I wrote here, only reworded into a letter.

My problem with this is that most of their readers (ie, children) won't know that much history and will take this "fact" at face value. The only reason I knew it was wrong was because I studied Holocaust history for a year--how many kids have done that?!

Maybe if all of us who have studied the Holocaust wrote in to correct them, something would change. All it would take is changing one or two words to fix the inaccuracy.

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ April 04, 2005 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Melissa ]</font>

My dd is between the recommended ags and under 11. She read this book and loved it. I just asked her for a synopsis and asked some questions. She reports that there is no death, no torture, and no racial epitaths, no sex. So I am wondering what the concern is?

Can you tell us in general terminology what sort of concern you have? I am asking because she said there is nothing in the book that she can imagine anyone being offended by. I'll read the book myself, but haven't gotten to it yet.

My dd loves biographies, and loved the Diary of Anne Frank and some other books about her. She has a personality that would make her a good doctor - empathetic but not overly sensitive. Some kids might be veyr sensitive ( my son was) to things they reqad in books, but they are studying these subjects in school at this age.

The purpose of these dolls was for education. Nellie's story ( and to a lesser extent, Addy's) are to me, offensive, because they actually lie about aspects of history in order to minimize sad or shameful truths. That is what I object to! And one reason I feel strongly abnout the age recommendati0ns being adheared to (so the company doesn't feel they have to lie in their books) .

The recommended 9-12 age group is considered by developemental specialists to be the right age for children to begin learning about slavery, the holocaust, etc. Obviously the grimmer aspects are not age appropriate for them, but from what my dd says was in Molly's book, it seems about right.

Popsie

I read Molly's mystery and it did seem that she was a bit "older" than her 10 years; but then again, I think kids then matured a bit quicker due to circumstance - they were born during the Great Depression and then grew up seeing their friends' parents and brothers (and even their own) die in a world war, they grew up with rationing and were expected to pitch in a lot more and work more than kids have to now. They gave up cakes and cookies because of sugar and butter rations and made do with one or two pairs of shoes a year. (Try that these days, myself included!) They heard about Pearl Harbor on the radio and listened to FDR describe the D-Day invasion several years later. They lived more history in four years of their lives than I've lived in my entire life, IMO.

I grew up with parents of that generation and heard stories of the Great Depression and WWII; my mother grew up in Norfolk, VA, and that city was considered a primary target as the home of HQ Atlantic Fleet (they had German subs in Chesapeake Bay!). I knew well who Hitler was when I was 10 and had already heard of the Holocaust. My father described how horrified, at 14, he was when he saw a newsreel that showed just what had been going on in Germany; the German govt kept it well hidden for quite some time from the outside world, and no one could believe the rumors anyway. Well, he saw it on a newsreel when he went to the movies. No one could believe that such a thing was true.

While I do think that kids today see way too much violence on primetime TV, I think there are some things you can't hide from kids. I was in the Imperial War Museum when I was in the UK and there is an entire wing there entitled "The Children's War", about what British kids went through during WWII. The exhibit is highly recommended for school groups and there were three different ones there while we were in the museum (I counted 3 different uniforms). Children shouldn't have things shoved down their throat, but I know it used to annoy me when adults would assume I didn't need to know anything and would try to sugarcoat the truth.

I'm NOT saying that's what anyone is doing here, but it bothers me when I realize that my nieces at 6 and 5 have NO idea of history, and I did at their age - as will my children someday. (I think my sister has approached this all wrong; Penelope has a hard time grasping that Josefina could have been a real little girl, just many many years ago. She's the only kid I've ever met who doesn't ask about when Grandma was little. That, to me, is screwed up.) Not graphic, mind you - but I think children need an age-appropriate appreciation of where we are now and where we've been. Otherwise, they walk into class when they're 10 and it's all news to them. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I feel right now. [img]smile.gif[/img]

previous post by Melissa:

Quote:

---

There is one MAJOR mistake in the book that AG should have caught. The author claims that Hitler wanted to kill anyone who wasn't a Christian (p. 160).

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Quote:

---

Do I think Non-Jews and, specifically, Christians did enough to help Jews? No. But good grief, they weren't the cause of the Holocaust!

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Melissa, I haven't read the book yet myself, so please forgive me, but just from reading your post, I'm not putting together the two quotes at all to infer that Christians were responsible for the Holocaust.

Hitler was responsible. If the book goes further to infer this then I would understand. I do think you could/should write to AG if you feel like it.

Laurie

Kimberly, You brought up something that has been on my mind ever since I posted earlier today. Kids of the 40's had adult size responsibilities and were exposed to harsh realities in their neighborhoods on a daily basis. I'm sure most were aware when Mrs. Grover down the street got that telegram, or Billy Hendrix came home shellshocked and missing a leg. They remembered when Mr. Baker lost his house and had to move away, and heard about little Suzie Sanford crying and running from her own father's arms because she hadn't seen him in two years.

We think kids shoudl not have to see things like this, but that is quite a new concept. It's also not very realistic. Todays kids see an awful lot that we like to believe they don't. I have two children myself and have been in line at the grocery when four old women decided to discuss (in great detail) the cruder points of the Clinton investigation. Today a friend told me her son was buying a candy bar at a gas station when two police came in and described the condition of a body as if they were discussing a party centerpiece. The victim's family or friends could have been standing there, and a small child was! I could go on and on, the things my kids have been exposed to that I never intended. It does not get worse when you have kids, the things you hear on the street, but you certainly become more aware of it!

I rode a city bus to high school, and often sat near a woman who had numbers written down her forearm. She had lost some of her mind in the camps, and tended to rave to anyone within earshot about the things she'd seen. It helped me that I had some knowledge of what she ws talking about.

If our educational system taught subjects like slavery and the holocaust and the like truthfully, and age appropriately, our nation's children would grow up more aware and more compassionate. I believe they would be better prepared to vote, and to otherwise solve the world's problems. I also believe there would be less interest in some of the fake violence that is so often seen in games and movies. I believe one reason kids get into fake scary things is because on some level they sense something is missing. they want to feel, and they want to be part of what is real. They also may do this to prepare themselves for unknown fears. If we prepared them better they might not need horor based fiction.

Popsie

<<<I also believe there would be less interest in some of the fake violence that is so often seen in games and movies. I believe one reason kids get into fake scary things is because on some level they sense something is missing. they want to feel, and they want to be part of what is real. They also may do this to prepare themselves for unknown fears. If we prepared them better they might not need horor based fiction.>>>

From 10 to 12 I was absolutely hooked on R.L. Stine's books. In fact, I'd like to re-read the Fear Street books because I remember them as being good and fairly scary. And at 13, I upgraded to Stephen King, who still remains my favorite writer. Then and now I read it because it's fun to be scared sometimes, and I honestly don't see a problem with that.

I agree kids don't need to be seeing rated R movies before they're teens and alot of video games I would pull from the market if I could. But I don't see them turning to the horror genre as a cry for reality, given the first five years of the new millenium, we've seen more then enough.

I finished reading this today because I wanted to find out what the controversy was. [img]smile.gif[/img] (I didn't find it, other than the "Looking Back" inaccuracy.)

The rest of the book was good, at least for entertainment value. I wondered about how accurate it would be for Molly to just wander around an airfield, for example. And it was somewhat upsetting that Molly lied very frequently and never got called on it. I think it's okay for characters in children's books to lie, but they need to be "found out" at some point and held accountable.

Anyway, though, I didn't find anything upsetting and enjoyed reading it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Laurie, the quote in the book is: "Some Americans . . . wanted the US to get rid of anyone who was not white and Christian, as Germany was doing." The insinuation seemed to be that there were Christians in the US and Germany who wanted to get rid of anyone who wasn't a white Christian. At the very least, it was a very poorly worded statement--it's also not true. While certainly there was antiSemitism amongst various groups of people, it was wrong to attribute antiSemitism and the Holocaust to a specific religion or race, especially since Hitler was not "for" organized religion, nor was he pro-white (he wanted to create a light-skinned, light featured German master race). Hitler wasn't specifically targeting people of other races, either. There were other groups of peoples he targeted, such as the disabled and Communists. They were white.

Thankfully, the book makes it *very* clear that Germans didn't necessarily agree with Hitler!

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ April 04, 2005 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Melissa ]</font>

It was my understanding that Hitler wasn't fond of anyone who was not of the Arian (sp?) race be they Christian or other. Anyone who was not of this race was thought to be inferior. I know he especially disliked the Jewish people which some scholars tend to think had something to do with the fact that his mother was Jewish. He disliked Christians because he found Christianity to be in error and because Jesus as in essence a Jew. Is it any wonder that Hitler is considered to be one brick shy of a full load?

Melissa that was a good point about Molly not getting in trouble for lying. I also thought the book was very good, but you are bringing up some very interesting and valid points.

Kim

<font color="#051E50" size="1">[ April 04, 2005 10:01 PM: Message edited by: courtneysunshine ]</font>

I thorougly enjoyed the story of the book, although I could sit here with Melissa and nit-pick it to death, lol.

Molly did not come across as too old to me. She was just about right. Both of my grandmothers were about the same age as Molly in 1944 and by todays standards they were exceptionally mature for their age. Kids grew up a LOT faster even just 25 years ago. When I tell seventh and eight graders that in 1820-30 they'd be getting married and starting to have kids they think I'm joking.

It probably wouldn't have been quite that easy for Molly to do all of that sneaking around at the airport. But please remember that Alison Hart got her start in childrens writing with Nancy Drew. The Molly mystery is VERY Nancy Drew-ish and that's one of the reasons that I loved it so much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mollymom:
I read Molly's mystery and it did seem that she was a bit "older" than her 10 years; but then again, I think kids then matured a bit quicker due to circumstance - they were born during the Great Depression and then grew up seeing their friends' parents and brothers (and even their own) die in a world war, they grew up with rationing and were expected to pitch in a lot more and work more than kids have to now. They gave up cakes and cookies because of sugar and butter rations and made do with one or two pairs of shoes a year. (Try that these days, myself included!) They heard about Pearl Harbor on the radio and listened to FDR describe the D-Day invasion several years later. They lived more history in four years of their lives than I've lived in my entire life, IMO.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">___________________________________________ ___

Mollymom, have you ever read 'the Greatest Generation,' by Tom Brokaw? If not, you must! It describes to a 'T' what you're saying. It's one of the best books I've read.