USA Today reported (March 13) that Michael Vick’s publisher has canceled book signing events relating to Vick’s autobiography Finally Free, due to violent threats against Vick, his family and employees participating in the event.

Sadly, animal rights fanatics (as opposed to animal lovers) have once again made their point with threats of violence and deserve only condemnation.

Now, I’m no fan of Michael Vick. A New York Giants football fan, I despise the Philadelphia Eagles and Vick as a player for my least favorite team. But, I’ll fight to the death for his right to publish his autobiography and be able to conduct a book tour. Vick has paid a hefty price for his transgressions (19 months in prison and the loss of countless millions of dollars when his contract with the Atlanta Falcons was voided). We are a society that offers second chances (in the case of Lindsay Lohan, for example, dozens of second chances).

We have something called peaceful demonstrations in this country, which sets us apart from many third world nations where protests can lead to jail or death. Animal rights fanatics (along with peaceful animal rights advocates) could have picketed outside stores Vick was to appear at and generated publicity for their cause. It’s a right granted by our Constitution and an appropriate response. There is no excuse for threats of violence, especially against employees of stores who were not culpable in Vick’s crimes. We have recently engaged in discussions to end bullying in schools. The sad fact is that bullying is not relegated simply to schools. Those who threaten violence to force the cancellation of a book signing are nothing more than heinous bullies who deserve our scorn.

I have no interest in reading Michael Vick’s autobiography but my protest against those who preach violence will be to purchase the book . . . and then donate it to my local library without reading it.

Teachers from at least one school in Seattle are refusing to administer standardized tests to their students, calling the results of the test “meaningless.” Teachers in other states are also balking at spending valuable time to teach the test and are considering refusing to administer the test. Simply put, teachers are being asked to “teach the test,” not educate students.

I speak as a former teacher of thirty years who saw a school district transformed in the late-nineties as standardized tests became significant not only to measure student’s performance but to evaluate teachers. Current teachers who may fear for the jobs aren’t able to reveal what they know about the lengths schools and districts will go to raise the scores on standardized tests (and I don’t mean cheating, which does occur). No longer under the thumb of my principal or school district, I can discuss the dark underbelly of test preparation.

In Philadelphia in the late-nineties a new superintendent was hired. His first year he downplayed performance on standardized tests. The tests were given with little fanfare. Many schools in the district did poorly.

The following year the superintendent moved aggressively to prove reforms he had implemented were successful. At our school over a period of just a few years our esteemed principal got rid of an art teacher, the school librarian and severely cut back on music (effecting a teacher who had been at the school forever and was beloved by all). Her hours were cut so she would only work with K-3 in a school that was a K-8 school. In their place the principal hired additional staff to work on reading, math and science – the areas covered by the standardized test. Teachers who offered programs in those areas were given preference when it came to receiving paid after school extracurricular programs – again at the expense of the arts.

District-wide the superintendent was equally as aggressive. What few know (and probably still don’t know) is that schools are penalized for each student who does not take the standardized test (at least in Pennsylvania). A student who answers just one question correctly actually helps a school while the school’s results are penalized if that student was absent and did not take the test. The first year of the superintendent’s reign this fact was not made known to individual schools. Poor attendance at some schools led to poor scores. The next year, out of the blue, a local radio station held a contest, offering a concert for the high school which had the best attendance for the standardized test. Commercials on the station ran ad nauseam. A coincidence? I think not.

At our school a reading teacher, whose main job was the preparation for and administration of the test, called the homes of any students who were absent the days the test was given. When they returned, even if still ill, students could make up any test missed (even if it meant being pulled out of their regular class where educating was going on). Attendance significantly improved when the test was given. Were parents contacted either before or after the test was given to improve attendance? The answer is obvious. The school couldn’t care less.

Lastly, manuals were provided to each teacher, with day-by-day lesson plans on how to teach for the test (something not done the previous year). Teachers were told to teach “the test,” not educate students. I often wondered aloud what would occur if on the day of the test a different test were given rather than the one we were told to prepare students for. Test-taking skills weren’t taught. We were instructed to teach “the test.”

Is it any wonder our school and many others significantly improved on their test scores from the previous year? The superintendent made sure the improved scores made headlines in the local papers and TV stations. His so-called reforms, he could say, were validated. It was nonsensical. The district couldn’t be accused of cheating (teachers didn’t erase incorrect answers and fill in correct ones as was the case in Washington, D.C.), but was the improvement in scores honest and accurate? No way.

So I applaud teachers who are risking suspension (as is the case in Seattle) for refusing to teach a test whose results are meaningless; a test which takes away valuable weeks of preparation when students can be educated. Test-taking skills should be taught to students. A state-wide test can be one tool in evaluating student performance. But a test should never become more important than educating students. A test shouldn’t stymie the creativity of teachers. And valuable programs shouldn’t be cut so a school can hire teachers whose main job is to prepare students to take a test. Applaud the teachers in Seattle and other cities who take educating so seriously they risk their job by refusing to administer a meaningless test.

Recently YA author Elizabeth Fama wrote an impassioned plea to reviewers, entitled “Kill My ARC,” to destroy Author Review Copies (known as ARCs) once they have read and reviewed them. Donate them to a library? Not on your life. Allow a friend or relative to read the book? Heaven forbid. Donate it to a school library or an impoverished school without funds to purchase books? Sorry, she won’t have it.

Part of her argument is that an ARC is not the finished book. It is an uncorrected proof sent out to reviewers prior to the book’s release. It’s sent out for review to generate buzz and (hopefully for the author) high praise.

In Fama’s case she said that she made major changes between the ARC and the book that will see release. And, the cover art on the ARC is not that on the finished product. So, the ARC is NOT her book she is saying.

And she is fervent in her demand that once reviewed an ARC should be destroyed. “I don’t want a deserving teenager—even one who is underprivileged, owns no other books, and who devotedly helped with his library’s collection development—to be given my ARC as a gift.”

And her demand is that “I want every single ARC pulped when the real book comes out” because “to me, the ARC is not my book. It’s an impostor of the real thing. Kill my ARC.”

Fama certainly doesn’t pull any punches, but her argument just doesn’t wash. Besides being a published author I am the publisher of Gauntlet Press. The ARC is 99.99% the finished product. As a reviewer why would I want to read an unfinished book? Why would I want to review a book where the author will make significant changes? Such changes could affect my review. In Fama’s case she said “my editor and I also doggedly tweaked the language to make it more lyrical.” I’m sorry, but those changes are to be made in the final proof the editor and author agree upon before ARCs are sent to reviewers, not after ARCs have been printed and shipped.

Fama also said that the cover art of her “final” version of the book is not the same as that on the ARC. Again, with the vast majority of publishers the cover art is not changed from the ARC to the final version (and in many cases the author has no say whatsoever on the cover art). And many publishers send out books without cover art for review. There’s nothing wrong with that.

There is another flaw in Fama’s argument. Since her ARC is not the finished product she wants to dictate what reviewers do with the ARCs they receive. What she fails to grasp is that many reviewers are not paid to review an ARC they receive from a publisher. A reviewer is just as much a writer as Fama. Unlike most reviewers Fama be paid, though, by her publisher, in part as a result of the efforts of unpaid reviewers. Since they are not being paid reviewers shouldn’t have to adhere to Fama’s ludicrous demands. There is nothing wrong with giving an ARC to an impoverished school or child. With budget cuts libraries (both public and school) are having increasing difficulty purchasing new titles. I’m in favor of donating books (yes, ARCs) to such deserving institutions. And, as far as giving the ARC to a friend or relative, the author might pick up a new fan who will purchase previously published books by the author. Is Fama opposed to that?

An ARC is a promotional tool of the publisher; a publisher who pays an author an advance and has a vested interest in trying to promote said author. What a reviewer does with an ARC after having written a review is none of Fama’s concern. The solution to her complaint is simple. Provide the publisher with the finished product prior to the publisher sending ARCs to reviewers.

This is the eighth in a series discussing how characters in The Shamra Chronicles would deal with current hot-button issues and pressures that confront today’s teens. How would Dara respond to the Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado Springs?

I live in Colorado Springs and have seen the impact of the Waldo Canyon fire. While the great majority of Colorado Springs has been spared the worst effects of the fire it has impacted everyone. Homes have been destroyed, lives lost, evacuations commonplace and no one has been spared the smell of the smoke that, at times, blanketed the city.

So, what would Dara, heroine of The Shamra Chronicles do when confronted with a fire like the one that has caused havoc in Colorado Springs? While women were taught to be submissive in the land of the Shamra Dara rebelled and when her country was invaded and enslaved she became the leader of a resistance army to free her people. She’s not one to sit on the sidelines.

Once the fire spread causing evacuations and destruction Dara would have wanted to fight the fire. Sadly, she is a teenager and she would not have been allowed to be a firefighter to combat the Waldo Canyon fire. She would most definitely have been irritated. To her age is a merely a number. She would have agreed to training and would have taken a test to determine if she had what it took to fight the fire. She wouldn’t have gotten her way due to her age. Now, it’s possible that impulsive as Dara was she might have ignored any warnings and attempted to fight the fire without permission. But, that would have been foolish and might have put others in harm’s way. After seething a bit Dara would have understood this. Still she would have wanted to be on the front lines. She would have volunteered to provide food, water and other necessities for those firefighters combating the fire.

She would have done more. Families who were forced to evacuate their homes were told, at a meeting, the last week in June whether their homes had survived the fire or been destroyed. For some prayers were answered. For others their worst fears became reality. Dara would have been at that meeting and would have done all she could to comfort those families whose homes were destroyed. She would try to make them understand that possessions can be replaced but lives can’t. Just as she attempted to raise the sometimes sinking morale of her resistance army she would rally those who lost their homes to look at what they still had – their lives and their loved ones. And, later, when it came time to rebuild, even though a teenager, she would volunteer to help in any way possible.

Still, she really would have wanted to actually fight the fire. It’s in her makeup.

In the Dystopian YA landscape, other than The Hunger Games trilogy, there is little that is innovative. As with every “the next big thing” there is little that equals the original. Lissa Price’s Starters is one of the rare exceptions. Price has come up with an original premise full of psychological terror and, as the book progresses, physical danger to the protagonist, as well.

In Price’s future there are the young and the old. The rest of the population has been annihilated by a genocide spore war. Only the young and the elderly were vaccinated. Only they survived. The elderly (some who are as old as 200) crave youth. The young, many who are homeless and live as scavengers, desire a stable home life. Prime Destinations offers the young both wealth and stability they desire. Teens can “rent” their bodies to the elderly (referred to as Enders) for more money than they might see in their lifetime.

Callie, a sixteen year old, is desperate for food and medicine for her sickly younger brother Tyler. She rents her body at Prime Destinations and the ride begins. The chip implanted in Callie’s head to manage the transfer malfunctions and she awakens in the midst of a rental in her own body with the voice of her renter, Helena, urging her to commit a heinous crime.

As the tale unfolds we learn that Prime Destinations has more grandiose and diabolical plans than simply renting bodies to Enders. Callie must expose Prime Destinations while also locating her brother who, she believes, has been kidnapped by the nefarious corporation.

Starters is crisply written and a quick read, full of twists and turns that continue to the very end, setting up the second and final book in the series.

Starters suffers from its one-dimensional heroine. Callie is beautiful, smart, heroic and willing to sacrifice herself for her brother, regardless of the consequences. Simply put she has no flaws. The best characters, whether in a YA or an adult novel, have layers and flaws that make them far more interesting than Callie. Helena, the Ender who initially inhabits Callie’s body, is a far more interesting character because she is more human.

As in far too many Dystopian novels amidst the horror that drives the plot romance blossoms. In this case Callie falls for Blake, the great-grandson of a Senator. The problem is the romance is too sudden. Callie meets Blake and within days is smitten. Even at the book’s conclusion when Callie learns Blake isn’t really who she thinks he is when he reaches for her hand she relents. Maybe Callie does have a flaw—she’s superficial.

All in all Starters is a satisfying read and Price has set up any number of conflicts to be resolved in the sequel.

(3 ½ out of 5 stars)

The premise of The List by Siobhan Vivian is promising, the execution less so.

Each year the week before Homecoming at Mount Washington High School a list of the prettiest and ugliest girls is circulated, forever altering the lives of those singled out. Nobody knows who creates The List, which has been circulated for as long as anyone can remember.

As always The List contains eight names, the prettiest and ugliest girl in the freshman, sophomore, junior and senior class. The strength of the book is the depiction of the angst and pressure of being in high school. Among topics explored is an eating disorder by one of the students, body image and peer pressure by others.

The structure of the book is its major weakness. All eight girls on the list tell tales from their point of view. It gets more than a little confusing and I had to continually go back several chapters to figure out just whose story was being revisited. Some of the girl’s stories were flushed out fully while others were incomplete.

The lack of diversity was also disappointing. There is not one black of Hispanic face in the crowd and the one Asian male is a secondary character.  It’s also hard to fathom that there are no gay students at Mount Washington. The book is set in the present so this is a gross oversight. There are a lot of missed opportunities due to the lily white cast of characters.

My biggest qualm, however, has to do with The List itself. One gets the sense at the outset that The List is a collaborative effort, possibly by a group of current or former students. Without spoiling it for anyone who hasn’t read the book we do find out who made The List by the book’s conclusion. And, it’s more than a little bit of a letdown. Worse, it’s farfetched. No single individual or group has generated The List. Someone (or some different group) compiles the list each year and it’s never the same individual (or group). That none of those who compiled the list has ever come forward to decry the practice after they’ve graduated, become adults or even parents is ludicrous. Is it possible generations of students at Mount Washington could be that shallow? After seeing how destructive The List proves for both the prettiest and ugliest girls at the school there is no way someone who created The List years earlier wouldn’t feel enough remorse to anonymously come forward to end the practice. The List has been in existence for so long that there are parents who had to have been involved in the creation of The List who now have children of their own at the school; children who appear on The List and have to live with its impact on their lives.

While exposing high school as the hell it is for many students The List has far too many flaws to overlook.

2 stars out of 5

On May 24 presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney stirred the pot when speaking about improving education in American public schools. His most controversial statement was that smaller class size has no impact on improvement in schools. He cited one study to back his position. He went on to say “More important was recruiting the best teachers and ensuring administrators have the correct priorities in leading schools.”

CNN, on their website, commenting on the story said that contrary to Romney’s claim most studies show there is a correlation between smaller class size and greater achievement of pupils in schools. Having taught 30-years I can attest that overcrowded classrooms don’t benefit students no matter how good the teacher. I taught at Philadelphia inner-city schools my entire teaching career. I had 33 students per class (I taught 5^th and 6^th grade). There were a few years I had as many as 35 students in my class. It’s not possible to give 33 students the same individual attention as it would have been to give, say, 25 students the attention they required. So, I would most definitely quarrel with Romney on his stance.

It’s also quite obvious that, regardless of how many students there is per class, the “best” teachers Romney refers to would do far better than mediocre or poor teachers. But, that would be the same whether a mediocre teacher had 33 or 25 students in a class. The problem here is one of burnout. Even the best teachers wilt under the pressure of large class size.

Just as significant is how John King, on his CNN show, handled the story. After reporting Romney’s comments King interviewed controversial former Washington DC chancellor Michelle Rhee to discuss Romney’s claim. Rhee is known for her position that class size has little or nothing to do with achievement. With King she went as far to say that technology will change education as we know it. Students will be given a lesson while at home on their computer or similar device. When they come to school teachers will help them practice what they’ve learned. She’s advocating that “master” teachers provide the lessons via technology and other (with large class sizes – far larger than exist today) less qualified teachers provide the practice for what has been learned.

Now, Rhee is entitled to her opinion. But King muffed the punt (he’s big into sport’s analogies) by not having a second educator on the show to rebut Rhee’s position. King’s show is known for its fierce debates between those advocating both sides of an argument. Discussions often get heated. But, with Romney’s controversial claim King saw fit to jettison impartiality and only present Rhee’s views, which mirror Romney’s. A bad call on King’s part. We’ve come to expect impartiality from CNN but it was absent here. If one didn’t know what network they were tuning into they might think they were watching FOX news, where impartiality is not a part of their vocabulary. It was King’s responsibility to provide balanced reporting. On this story he fumbled the ball.

It galls me to no end when sports columnists or pompous television analysts use derogatory nicknames to degrade athletes. I noticed this at least fifteen years ago with New York Post columnist Peter Vecsey. He’d toss around sarcastic and demeaning nicknames in every column. Over the past five or so years Vecsey has either mellowed or come to the realization you can criticize (even condemn) an athlete’s performance without using venomous nicknames.

ESPN’s Skip Bayless (on the program First Take), on the other hand, seems to relish the childish nicknames he tosses around daily. A brief sampling: There is “Bosh Spice” (basketball player Cris Bosh) given the nickname for playing soft; “Prince James” (Lebron James) for lacking what Bayless calls the “clutch gene” at the end of basketball games; “Tony Romeo” (Dallas Cowboy’s quarterback Tony Romo) for dating Jessica Simpson and other celebrities; and “Mark Sanchize” (Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez) for underachieving.

Bayless was finally taken to task for his name-calling by former basketball player and now analyst Jalen Rose on the April 11^th airing of First Take. Bayless was called a bully by Rose and he didn’t like it one bit. And, Bayless wasn’t about to back down (he referred to himself during the exchange with Rose as “a fighter”). I’d have to wonder how he’d feel if another analyst referred to his beloved Tim Tebow as “Pastor Tim” or “Reverend Tim” because Tebow wears his Evangelistic Christianity on his sleeve. My bet is he’d take offense. More than that, he’d go berserk.

Bayless says athletes are fair game because of the money they make. What a sick rationalization. Bayless denigrates the person, not the performance or the player. He crosses the line with his vicious nicknames. He disrespects athletes as human beings – all points Jalen Rose eloquently made when putting Bayless in his place.

Why is this reprehensible? Because Bayless is acting like a bully, just as tweens in middle school and teens in high school label fellow students with nicknames to mock them. What kind of example is Bayless setting for teens who watch First Take and hear him tossing around derogatory nicknames with a smirk on his face? They’ll emulate him and bullying in schools will increase. Bayless is the worst kind of role model for young adults. And, lest Bayless forget in recent years bullying has led to a number of suicides. Bayless should be setting an example for our youth, not suggesting that bullying is acceptable.

There’s nothing wrong with Bayless giving his opinion about the shortcomings of athletes. The best analysts and columnists do it all the time . . . with class. But Bayless crosses the line when he disrespects his targets with childish putdowns. As another analyst, Bill Plaschke (Around the Horn and the L.A. Times) would say, Bayless should be ashamed of himself.

Recently Joel Stein, who writes for Time Magazine, wrote a scathing article chastising adults who read YA books, saying such books were for kids. “The only thing more embarrassing than catching a guy on the plane looking at pornography on his computer is seeing a guy on the plane reading The Hunger Games or a Twilight book.”

Using Horton Hatches the Egg as an example (but by inference lumping in all YA books) his rationale was that a YA book “doesn’t have the depth of language and character as literature written for people who have stopped physically growing.”

And finally he yells to the heavens, “I’ll read The Hunger Games when I finish the previous 3,000 years of fiction written for adults.”

He admits he has no idea what The Hunger Games is about because he hasn’t and won’t read the book. That’s like saying you won’t eat peanut butter without ever having tasted it.

YA books are not solely for kids. Hell, Stein never even defines “kids” for us. One has to assume since he attacks The Hunger Games and Twilight that he’s not referring only to elementary or middle school readers. Young Adult literature is just what the term implies: those in their teens and even their early twenties.

Adults (even those who can no longer remember their teen years) can most certainly enjoy The Hunger Games. It has all the elements Stein wants in an “adult” book: depth of language and well-crafted characters. The Hunger Games also deals with adult themes (an oppressive autocratic government which can imprison, even kill its citizens without due process) that adults of any age can appreciate.

Stein assumes the books written for adults he will read before he touches a YA book are all well-written. We all know that’s a crock. Many books written for adults are quite simply a waste of paper. Many are poorly written. Just as many incorporate poor characterization. In any novel the reader wants characters to come to life on paper; three-dimensional characters with strengths and flaws. Some the reader will sympathize with. Others the reader may detest and hope for their demise. Just because a book is written for adults there is no guarantee the reader will care about the characters if they are not properly developed. Those who traipse across the page in The Hunger Games or the Harry Potter series are well-crafted three-dimensional characters the reader cares about. Why? Because the books are well-written and appeal to tweens, teens, adults and old geezers (and geezettes).

Stein says books are “one of our few chances to learn” and infers that one can’t learn from a YA novel. Since (from what he says) he hasn’t read YA novels such a blanket statement is ludicrous. Many YA novels give the reader just as much of a chance to learn as those written for adults. And, there are any number of books written expressly for adults that don’t teach anything. And, there’s nothing wrong with that. Why can’t adults read books solely for enjoyment or as a means to escape a dreary life?

I’ve written both novels for adults and a YA series. I don’t dumb down the writing of my YA books. Since I want to get them read in schools I don’t use profanity or sex in my YA series. But I do tackle adult themes such as honor killings, a society that demands women be submissive and slavery in my Shamra Chronicles. They are written for teens but can be enjoyed by adults, as well. And, you can learn as much from my series as books written expressly for adults.

Stein never defines what he considers “kids” books (I wonder if that might be considered poor writing?). Are graphic novels “kids” books? If so would Stein refuse to read Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” which deals with a Holocaust survivor and just so happened to have won a special Pulitzer Prize?

Stein needs to get off his high horse and look at books in their totality. There are exceptionally well-written YA novels just as there are thousands of books written for adults that . . . well, suck. A good book is simply that: a novel that grabs the reader and refuses to let go regardless for whom it was written for. I’ve read The Hunger Games and enjoyed it immensely and I ain’t no kid. I pity Stein for what he is missing by refusing to read YA novels. Then again, maybe he is getting just what he deserves.

This is the seventh in a series discussing how characters in The Shamra Chronicles would deal with current hot-button issues and pressures that confront today’s teens. Would Dara have an abortion?

In Shamra society marriage, bearing and raising children was the accepted practice and clerics who governed Shamra society put enormous pressure on all to adhere to traditional values. Dara, however, always felt like an outcast, and in Shamra Divided she learns that her ancestors had been banished, two hundred years earlier, when the Shamra moved to a new homeland. Dara had been part of a warrior/hunter clan whose values differed greatly from those espoused by the ruling clerics. Dara’s ancestors, leaders of the Stone Mountain Shamra, had a harsh life, living on a mountain and fighting a race that greatly outnumbered them. For Dara’s family procreation was a necessity to insure their family would continue to lead their clan. While not promiscuous, romance and marriage took a backseat to survival. Few of Dara’s female ancestors married, though all bore children. Dara, herself, had no amorous desires when she reached puberty. Pilla, her close friend and soulmate, being more traditional was to marry the day the Shamra were attacked and enslaved. She continually told Dara that she would one day find a male to cherish and marry. But, as Pilla prepared for marriage, Dara scoffed at the idea she would
ever find a male she would fall in love with (and find a male who would abide by her un-Shamra-like behavior).

With this in mind if contemporary Dara became pregnant she would accept the consequences of her actions and have her baby. She would keep her baby feeling she could raise a child better than any stranger. She would not consider marriage to the father. Getting pregnant had nothing to do with love and marriage. She would decide the father’s role in the rearing of her child. But Dara would not oppose abortion. She would feel that it was a woman’s choice what to do under such circumstances. Her personal
view would be if she was foolish enough to engage in unprotected sex she would have to face the music rather than taking the easy way out. Yet she would accept the decisions of others whether it be to have an abortion or have the baby and give it up for adoption. She would involve herself in the pro-choice movement, adamant that no religious group or others who opposed abortion would have a say in what a woman did with her body. And, Pilla would be right beside her. She, too, would accept the consequences for risky sexual behavior—she would have and rear her child if she became pregnant.