I thought I disliked the book the first time I read it. But after reading it through a critical lens, I think I hate it even more. Scholastics recommended this book for grades 3-8. That absolutely blew my mind. I could not imagine anyone younger than an eighth-grader reading this book due to the vulgar and inappropriate remarks: body parts, tampons, and porn. Having it available at a public library is one thing, but absolutely not in a public education facility. It is a "z" reading level which would be independently the middle school students. But this is not a book that I would share whole-class instruction with or include it in a text set.
I do not think this book seems very authentic. On page 33, it talks about how George thought about kissing a boy. I don't think that is appropriate to be discussed with younger children. Yeah they see it, but it does not need to be put in there heads about doing it. The author portrays photography as being feminine with Kelly being as obsessed over it as she was, which is inaccurately portrayed. Guys can be good and like photography just as much, guys usually have a better sense of perfection than girls do. On page 48, it makes the comment that George must be a girl because he is good at math and hates snakes. Which again, it inaccurate. Guys are generally better at math and guys can hate snakes...On page 76, it referenced how George hated going to the gym because he was forced to be competitive "as boys should be", but growing up, I was very into sports and highly competitive. It does not mean I thought I should be a boy, never even crossed my mind actually.
I hated how they portrayed school throughout the book. I feel like the public school system already gets so much backlash and this book just makes it seem that much worse. It talks about bullying, poor and not appetizing lunches, female and male restrooms. Yes, Jeff and his friends were being bullies, but then George took it to a whole another level when he put the paint on Jeff's shirt. George didn't realize there was anything wrong with what he was doing when he was doing it, but there obviously was. I feel like George crossed a line and put himself in harm's way but then wanted pitty. The most inaccurate portrayal of all was on page 176
"The light in the east was still orange from the sunrise. The sun istself had lifted into the sky, and its rays were warm on Georges face each time --- emerged from the shade of the oak tree".
This portrays the idea that after George comes out, that he is accepted by all and the world is such a better place. This is not true, he would face so much backlash and hatred, not be sitting there taking the sun in on his face.
I despised the fact that on page 46, they use the media to deem what is acceptable in the world and what is not. Especially the comment, "what was between her legs was nobody's business but hers and her boyfriends". I 100% disagree, I feel like if I am sharing a dressing room with you or a bathroom, then I reserve the right and respect to know that and reserve the right to be uncomfortable with the idea.
I hated the fact that George felt so entitled to get the part of Charlotte. It just baffled me that yes he was trying to represent who he felt he was, but why would he think he was any more deserving of that part than anyone else. Especially all of the other girls.
I think it's evident that George suffers from the abandonment of his father, and that took an influence on how he turned out. But then again, I see this is a choice. A choice in the fact George could have gone to therapy to get help before it reached the point he was at. I do not think he necessarily felt like he was a girl. But instead did not have a father role model to live by. He thought all of his actions seemed feminine so, yepp must be a girl. Which is inaccurate. He should have been taught that individuals carry different characteristics but it does not make them more feminine or masculine.
Another reason I could not have this book in an elementary school classroom would be the vocabulary. Looking at the tier 2 words I pulled out, there is no way a student could read this in elementary school with a dictionary beside them.
invincibility
indignant
pursuits
drone
lifeblood
disdain
propelled
crevices
retched
interspersed
lenient
devious
tirade
ecstatic
foraged
indulgence
frolicked
scowl
brusquely
giddy
amassed
shuddered
eloquent
laden
I feel like kids have enough pressure as is, they do not need to be posed with "am I really a girl or guy?", that is not a question that they should ponder. I should not have students in my class that feel like they are wrong or underrepresented because they are going by the gender God or their intended for them as opposed to the other student who feel like they can rewrite the rule book.
I am not a fan of this book. I would not recommend at all. I have high hopes that other authors could express this idea of gender identity in a less biased and offensive way.
Alex Gino has an authors page and thoughtful insights on how to discuss gender identity, feel free to look them up, I'm not promoting the author or this book. The book trailer and interviews about the book can be found on YouTube.
Hermann- Wilmarth, J. M., & Ryan, C. L. (2015). Doing What You Can: Considering Ways to Address LGBT Topics in Language Arts Curricula. Language Arts, 92(6), 436–443.
Huyck, David, Sarah Park Dahlen, Molly Beth Griffin. (2016). Diversity in Children’s Books 2015 infographic. sarahpark.com blog. Retrieved from https://readingspark.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/picture-this-reflecting-diversity-in-childrens-book-publishing/
Gino, A. (2015). George. New York, NY: Scholastic Press.
Stachowiak, D. (2018). Questioning the Norm. Literacy Today, 28–30.