Go The F**k To Sleep: Funny or Offensive?
Saturday, June 18, 2011 
Last weekend when we were shopping at Chapters, the book "Go The F**k To Sleep" by Adam Mansbach caught my eye. I hadn't heard about it until that moment and I was curious what it was all about. I picked it up and leafed through it, giggling a bit at some of the bedtime scenarios that were all too familiar. If you haven't seen the book yet, you can watch this video of it being read by Samuel L. Jackson (the story starts at about 1:00 if you want to skip the intro).
[Edited to add: VIDEO NO LONGER AVAILABLE]
All parents have been there, right? We've all had those times when we wished, for once, that our baby, toddler or older child would just go to sleep already. We've all had those evenings where we are desperate for some alone time, where we have something we need to do after the kids are in bed, or where we are just EXHAUSTED and want to go to sleep ourselves.
Everyone has thought it at one time or another, with or without the profanity. So I giggled, because I've been there, just like you have. However, it left me feeling a bit uneasy.
I work in a city and I like to walk on my lunch hour. Sometimes I walk along busy sidewalks. Sometimes I walk in the mall. Sometimes I cut through stores. When I am walking, my goal is to keep moving at a decent pace. Inevitably, I will end up stuck behind people who are not walking as fast as I am and who do not get out of my way. Some of those people are clueless, i.e. they are chatting with their friend and are completely oblivious to the fact that I want to pass them. Some people notice that I want to pass and just can't be bothered getting out of the way. But there are also people who are in my way because they are in a wheelchair or using a walker, because they are elderly, because they are obese, because they have one of those huge strollers, or simply because their legs are shorter than mine.
So, I could probably write a book called "Get the F**k Out of My Way." Maybe it would be funny when relating it to the scenarios where some jerk just can't be bothered getting out of my way. Perhaps it would even be funny when talking about the people who are just clueless that I'm trying to pass them. But would it be funny if I was directing my "Get the F**k Out of My Way" to someone who is disabled, obese, elderly or vertically challenged? Not really.
Through the eyes of parents alone, "Go the F**k to Sleep" may be funny, just as "Get the F**k Out of My Way" would be funny if you were considering only my view point and not the viewpoint or limitations of those I was directing it at. In most cases, I don't think our children are staying awake at night specifically to annoy us. Perhaps there may be the odd occasion where an older child is purposely trying to disrupt the parents' plans, but for the most part, I don't think that a non-sleeping child realizes that they are ruining your evening or keeping you from sleeping. They are thinking that they want to cuddle with you, that they are not tired, that they are thirsty, that they are scared, that they are lonely, or that they just don't want to sleep.
Some of those are needs, others are wants, but none of them are maliciously intended actions that deserve a response such as "Go The F**k To Sleep," even if we are sometimes thinking that on the inside.
So yes, I giggled a bit, but I didn't feel great about it and I wouldn't say that I endorse the book's message any more than I would endorse a comedian who made inappropriate jokes.
"Please stay to the right."
"Please close your eyes."
Those are, I think, more reasonable requests, even for our inside voices, than "[blank] the f**k [anything]." Both for our own sanity and frame of mind and out of respect for the person those words and thoughts are directed at, even when they are annoying us.
Reader Comments (214)
Thank goodness! I found this blog through another one that was refuting it...I'm just glad to find other people who were as put off by this book as myself and a few friends were. It's not about having a sense of humour or not - it's about respect for our kids who have simple needs and wants for such a short time. To all the "go the f*k to sleep" lovers out there - tonight when you hop into bed, and every night for that matter, just "go the f to sleep" yourself and stay there until morning, regardless of if you're thirsty, think of something you want to write down, want to chat with your spouse about something, have to pee, can't sleep, want to read a little, etc... best of luck.
Hooray you, "we all have amateurs as parents." There is a new book out by researchers on Empathy which has this stunning title: "The Science of Evil: on empathy and the origins of cruelty." Letting lapses begin to build up in our sense of seeing things BOTH from our own eyes and those of people we interact with is the very origin of evil. That is a heady claim, but it is certainly backed up by the research in this book. GTFTS is pretty damn terrible, and while we all understand that children can be exasperating, it just is NOT ok to *feel* the way the father does in Mansbach's picturebook. The book is 'black humor' that has crossed a line. Toddlers cannot become 'objects' for dark humor or the goodness in us withers away.
I read it, and then bought it for a friend who has a toddler and a newborn. I thought it was hilarious, and just the kind of black humour that has, over the years, helped me get through the day (or night) raising my kids.
I thought that it was warm, and funny, and shows that even those of us who will not allow our kids to "cry it out", and those of us who try and be mindful and understanding in our parenting are not always candidates for sainthood. I know that I have had occassional foul-mouthed thoughts at having to read "Pat The Bunny" one. more. time.
Thanks for the book info - as a teacher, I see lack of empathy as a big issue with many behavioral issues (i.e. general lack of kindness towards others who need/deserve it). I have the book on hold at my local library and look forward to checking it out.
Parent-teacher meetings are always quite telling (i.e. so here is the tree from whence that apple came) so parents should be mindful of how their attitudes will shape who their children become.
I think this book is a one-trick-pony (page after page of the same joke-that-was-only-funny-once). And it was wincingly funny, meaning it made me uneasy, too. I was glad to find a completely opposite book to balance it out: Check out the book Twice Just to be Sure, by Uncle Pea http://unclepea.com, which you can read online. It has so much earnest respect for the kid's feelings and thoughts, it deserves to be prescribed by docs as the antidote of "Go the Fuck..."
But the f*ck in this case is directed at the situation...not as an adjective describing the children. If the author had said, "Will you f*ing children go to sleep?", I would follow your logic better.
Instead, I see a parent who has done everything, everything...and is just fed-up with the situation, not the child.
It is Greek theater-style catharsis for modern parents and...yes...hilarious.
Candance, The father is angrily insistent that the toddler go to sleep, placing the child in an impossible circumstance. None of us can go to sleep, immediately, by edict. A child cannot make a nuanced discrimination here about why the father is angry.
The father is failing to empathize with his child -- to see things as they are from the toddler's point-of-view. The book is black humor that has crossed a line, making it very much deserving of condemnation, IMHO.
I don't believe anyone is proposing the book be read to a toddler...or a young child. Presumably by the time anyone reads this book, he or she is able to understand the nuance.
The father is not failing to empathize because he is not actually telling any real life toddler, or advocating anyone tell any real life toddler, to "Go the F*ck to Sleep". It is a book for adults to laugh at their own frustrations. The laughter stems, if anything, from the very recognition that expecting a child to do anything on your schedule is unrealistic.
You can argue that it damages the dialogue about respectfully addressing a child's needs...but the idea that this is not a parody of children's bedtime books but is an actual bedtime book itself...or that any responsible parent would mistake it for such...is just not supported by the book, its marketing, or the discussion here.
Candace, I fully acknowledge in my earlier comment, and here again, that the book is 'black humor.' My concern it what effect it has on many parents who read the book and make acceptable, in their own minds, a line of thinking that they needn't be empathetic with their children.
There's a very short Philosophy Bites podcast with an expert on humor, found here http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/noel-carroll-on-humour that touches on the revulsion that we ought to have when our humor targets innocents. Parents should see their role as one of widening their sense of compassion and escaping the immature impulse to be selfish.
I know children are a handful. But parents are tasked with the responsibility of being adults.
Acknowledging it is "black humor" is not the same as acknowledging that it is not for children...when you say that a child cannot parse the nuances here, you are implying that my comment means that a child would need to do so.
While I accept that "desensitization" is a valid concept and topic to address in this discussion, I still argue that in this case the book is more rightly followed under "catharsis". The book helps us release the miasma by watching someone else express the emotions in a safe way (ie, a fictional parent in a parody of a bedtime story).
Since we, as adults, can parse the difference between cursing *at* our children and cursing a frustrating situation, it is not at all encouraging abusive behavior. Rather, it is making light of our own *unexpressed* frustrations, as adults...it is not making light of verbal aggression towards children.
The message isn't "kids are obnoxious sometimes" but rather "parents get frustrated sometimes".
And that's okay...as long as your reaction to your frustration is to release it in a safe way...amongst other adults.
Note that throughout the book the adult continues to use loving forms of address when describing the child.
And note that he continues to model, even in this fictional work aimed at adults, almost saintly nighttime parenting--he's getting that upteenth glass of water, tucking the child in again, and still addressing the child with various terms of endearment.
Yes, he does start to break down a little towards the end...but still the fictional parent is remaining patient in his behavior towards the child.
This book is many times removed from actually being aggressive towards children since the fictional father in the book, intended for adult eyes only, is not even directing his more negative words *at* the fictional child.
Yes. how you frame a situation does affect how you view it and ultimately how you act...but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a funny book for adults is just a funny book for adults that allows them to laugh *at themselves*.
Candace, Thank you for the excellent expression of your view of the book in the comment immediately above this one. It gives me things to think about.
I do now think that in the vast majority of cases the book will be non-harmful, and even helpful, to young couples bearing the often-flustering task of tending to a needy toddler. But in a perfect world where I am the Absolute Dictator, I would still want all copies of the book to be stacked high and set ablaze!
IMHO, parents should not have a separate place, apart from their children, where they nurture their gripes about the little monsters. Parents should both want to be authentic with their kids and have their empathy always switched ON. From this will flow a beautiful parent-child relationship that can withstand the trauma of the toddler growing up to be a -- gulp -- teenager!!
This from The Science of Evil [ http://www.amazon.com/Science-Evil-Empathy-Origins-Cruelty/dp/0465023533/ ]: "When our empathy is switched off, we are solely in the “I” mode. In such a state we relate only to things or to people as if they were just things. Most of us are capable of doing this occasionally. We might be quite capable of focusing on our work without sparing a thought for the homeless person outside our office. But whether we are in this state transiently or permanently, there is no 'thou' visible – at least, not a thou with different thoughts and feelings. Treating other people as if they were just objects is one of the worst things you can do to another human being, to ignore their subjectivity, their thoughts and feelings."
I do understand that GTFTS is *just* a fictional story -- but you are right to believe that parents will take it personally. And THAT is the problem. To my mind, many bad parents are likely to see the book as 'cultural permission' to objectify their children.
Again, recognizing the validity of your idea, in general, I just don't believe it is applicable here. Nothing in the book objectifies children or portrays them as little monsters or diminishes their needs as people...it is about laughing at ourselves, not others.
We can only agree to disagree at this point. To me it is obvious that everything in the book objectifies children. It is a Pollack joke or a Spic joke or a Wetback joke using humor to target people.
Toddlers are especially vulnerable to being murdered by their parents. Or, being savagely beaten up. That happens every day. The culture we are in shapes our reactions to things. Most parents, certainly, are perspicacious and ego restrained enough not to 'lose it' such that do something horrible and stupid, but many other parents walk a thin line.
We live in a world that, happily, is much less tolerant than it used to be in allowing attacks on blacks and Poles and Gays and the disabled. I am confounded. What in the world are we doing making room for the retched GTFTS in our culture? WTF!?
[...] “the best children’s book since ‘Goodnight Moon,’ ” or a symptom of all that is wrong with parenting, depending on which Web site you read. Over on babble.com the book sparked a debate over whether it [...]
I don't disagree with anything you say about parenting--only about the book. And you point to nothing textually in the book to convince me that this book does any of the things you say it does. You say it is "obvious" but offer no actual support.
You only make points about what happens when we do not recognize the humanity of children and that this could be done under the guise of "humor", points with which I agree. But you may no arguments about how this *specific* book contributes to these things.
Laughter directed at others has the potential to be dehumanizing and cruel, no doubt...but this laughter is directed *inward* and you've provided no support to contradict this point.
I believe very strongly in gentle, respectful parenting techniques and have practiced these with three lovely children, one of which was (and to some extent still is) a very "high needs" child. I don't see anything in this book, as it is intended or received, that negates these ideas.
If anything, it reinforces through its absurdity the idea that OF COURSE we do not express those sorts of frustrations to or at our children. The profanity takes it over the top so that parents recognize how ridiculous it is to blame the child.
This book is for the very parents who use gentle parenting--because they are the ones who have gotten up for the umpteenth time, checked the bed for monsters, refilled the water glass, etc. A person who uses "CIO" or otherwise refuse to engage their children during the nighttime would not recognize the scenario and therefore find it less amusing.
If a book actually made light of verbal violence towards children, I would share your feelings.
[...] and which is either “the best children’s book since ‘Goodnight Moon,’ ” or a symptom of all that is wrong with parenting, depending on which Web site you read. Over on babble.com the book sparked a debate over whether it [...]
In what is currently comment 23, Candace made a bit of a D.A.'s Final Statement re my point of view. I would like to retort for the Defense
She made these claims:
ASSERTION: Tom points to nothing textually in the book to convince me that this book does any of the things you say it does. [Tom says] says it is “obvious” but offer no actual support.
You only make points about what happens when we do not recognize the humanity of children and that this could be done under the guise of “humor”, points with which I agree. But you may no arguments about how this *specific* book contributes to these things.
RETORT: Throughout the book THE CHILD is being derided. The cussing, with one exception, is directed AT THE CHILD. I say this is obvious because it is only [but fully] self-evident. I understand that readers who love the book interpret the book as being evidence of THE THOUGHTS of the father. But, quite literally taken, the father is expressing his annoyance AT the child, within the rhyme-scheme of the text.
ASSERTION: Laughter directed at others has the potential to be dehumanizing and cruel, no doubt…but this laughter is directed *inward* and you’ve provided no support to contradict this point.
RETORT: HA! The aggression is directed toward the child and her [off-stage] expressions of what she wants/needs. You choose to assess the book differently than what is literally there. Many parents -- not all -- will take a demented pleasure in the story as it literally is written.
ASSERTION: I believe very strongly in gentle, respectful parenting techniques and have practiced these with three lovely children, one of which was (and to some extent still is) a very “high needs” child. I don’t see anything in this book, as it is intended or received, that negates these ideas.
RETORT: Again, you are choosing to disregard the story that was written. That's fine, I prefer the fantasy of the fantasy. But many people respond only very literally to what they are presented with. Less mature people, in particular -- think Red Meme in Spiral Dynamics -- will see the book fully or near fully as a literal, straightforward expression from the author.
ASSERTION: If anything, it reinforces through its absurdity the idea that OF COURSE we do not express those sorts of frustrations to or at our children. The profanity takes it over the top so that parents recognize how ridiculous it is to blame the child.
RETORT: You appear to have no idea how 'the other half live.' Children get battered quite a lot in this country. Cuss words are some of the first words millions upon millions of youngsters learn. Over a thousand todders are murdered each year; most by a parent, usually the mother. The book presents the absurdity of what family life near-literally is for many. It is the furthest thing from over-the-top un-lived fiction.
ASSERTION: This book is for the very parents who use gentle parenting–because they are the ones who have gotten up for the umpteenth time, checked the bed for monsters, refilled the water glass, etc. A person who uses “CIO” or otherwise refuse to engage their children during the nighttime would not recognize the scenario and therefore find it less amusing.
RETORT: "Bad Parents" crack up the most at instances of incongruity, when bad-ass manners confront the snooty. A book with lots of fucks in it will be their cup of tea. The book is getting culture-wide attention. It's not going to be the private joy of the Debutante Class.
ASSERTION: If a book actually made light of verbal violence towards children, I would share your feelings.
RETORT: The book is wholly unacceptable on sooo many levels. We don't place toddlers in dangerous situations. Since this book is a mock picturebook, it is personal, and it erodes the respect we should have for young children. Even in our culture pre-GTFTS, we were not adequately attuned to the dangers that confront the very young.
My husband is the DA, not me ;)
But I still have yet to see you point to anything specific in the text. The profanity, the frustration, is at the situation, not the child. You can't just say something is "self-evident" or "obvious" because you think it is so.
As to the audience...I disagree strongly. This book is for the hipsters...perhaps you do not have them where you live but I assure you this is exactly that sort of humor.
"Bad parents"--truly bad parents--are not reading any sort of parenting book. They may watch/listen to the Samuel L. Jackson reading...but it will still be a foreign matter to them. Unless you have actually tried EVERY single gentle means of getting a child to sleep, only to have that child pop up at the first tiny noise from outside...it just makes no sense at all.
And if your argument is that books/videos, etc. like this are going to increase violence, you would have to argue that this is reaching not the "good" parents who "get it" or the "bad" parents who already are not nurturing their kids but some group of "in between" parents who are unsure of appropriate parenting, are unable to parse a text, seek out a book that everyone is telling them is humor, and will still somehow register the text as a license to act violently...
You are the one who is going outside the text, imagining an audience that is not reading the book, intentions the author never had, and events that are not happening in the book.
Your insistence on "schooling" me in "how the other half lives" is as patronizing as it is misguided.
Spouting statistics at me that I already know (not to mention am very familiar with in the concrete and personal sense) only reinforces that there are horrible situations for children today--something which I have never denied. You seem to be having a different discussion.
I get responses emailed to me and have been following this...
I just want to say, aren't there other books we should be worrying about? Books that preach CIO and are still on library and book store shelves. How about religion slipped into seemingly harmless children's books? When I was stocking up for my son's arrival, I had the damnedest time finding kids' books without Christian undertones.
Bottom line, this is a joke book. If you find it unfunny, that is fine, but this one book alone is not going to make anyone a worse parent. The types of people who will misconstrue the content are likely shitty parents anyway.
I sit here with 'the book' -- shutter -- in front of me. I am, first off, amazed at how tiny it is. It's the puniest monster that ate Japan I ever saw.
First off. I reject any issue of "what the author intended to write" or "it's a joke book" or all these absolutist claims of what the book is to everybody. I, happily, am the egalitarian, appreciator of people having differing worldview. The book is what it is. I submit that the minds of people differ rather extraordinarily, and VIVA the differences because variety benefits our species.
Read literally, the book is the story of a father expressing anger at his child. AT HIS CHILD as the CAUSE of the situation. His anger is inappropriate and becomes increasingly extreme. Candace, you say I don't offer evidence of that!? I can quote you the whole of the book, I suppose. Or ask how in the world you could think differently. Here's evidence, from an arbitrary page: "It's been thirty-eight minutes already. Jesus Christ, what the fuck? Go to sleep." The situation isn't being asked to go to sleep; the child is. THE CHILD is the target; it ain't nuthin else.
It is IN THE STORY. It is in the meter and rhyme. I suppose -- maybe you don't -- that the angry-sounding words are said/read to the child. A reading of the picturebook that the child is 'under attack' -- in a sense -- by the father is, to my mind, certainly a reasonable/sane understanding of the book. Indeed, I would say it is the ONLY literal understanding of the text. And, I would claim, the dominant way the book will be understood by non-initiated readers -- who, for example, see it on the library shelf, know nothing prior about it, and take it home.
Of course, worldly people will come to understand that it is black humor.
But really, either way, the book erodes something -- the one thing, perhaps -- that should be retained. The special restraint we have on behalf of children. That they are protected and that it is culturally unacceptable to mess with them. We need these protections, in law and culture, to be sacrosanct.
As for the last half of your post, Candace: It touches, perhaps, on a massive philosophical argument. But my view, as succinctly as I can make it, is this: Everything in our lives affects us. Indeed, we are empty (as the Buddhists say) except for the myriad influences that steer us between anger and love and madness. GTFTS is boundary busting and damaging. We will never know because statistics to tell us could never be gathered, but I believe children will get beat up more severely and some will die because this book, in massive numbers, is now among our things. It's a bad direction. Woe.
I disagree this is the only literal understanding of the text. Even the passage you quote shows the profanity directed at the situation, not the child. It is not "go to sleep you little f*er".
The father, if he were truly abusive, would have abandoned the child on page one. The situation is only recognizable to parents who actively help the child to sleep.
I think one could develop a study to see if the book desensitizes anyone...and perhaps someone will. Until then, we can only speculate on its effect.
However, I strongly disagree with your analysis of the text, even on a literal level, and with how you suppose some people may interpret it.
You say this is the "only way" to read the text literally. You claim to be open to differences of opinion...but clearly you are not.
I don't know what to say. [But of course I don't mean that LITERALLY since here I am posting a comment, again.]
I'm not disparaging other readings of the text. Finding things aswirl in the ulterior message and subcontext is GOOD. But a "literal" understanding takes things literally.
From a google search: "define literal"
Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory: "dreadful in its *literal* sense, full of dread".
in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the *literal* meaning of a word.
Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. 2. Word for word; verbatim: a *literal* translation.
"Go the fuck to sleep" is a command. If somebody tells me to "go the fuck to sleep" it isn't, in its literal sense, a cogitation on angst. It is a directive. It is simple. It isn't bundled up in a universe of other interpretations.
This is English we're speaking [well, literally, writing in]. "Literal" is not a squishy word. It should be possible to understand its meaning, l-i-t-e-r-a-l-l-y.
Your attitude is so condescending and patronizing that I LITERALLY have nothing else to say to you after this setntence.
[...] to see what was being written out there. PhD in Parenting (not big surprise), has a very reasonable take on the book, in my opinion. I liked this article (found through my googling), [...]
People don't get offended for those things they ought to. And, at other times get offended for next to nothing. That is assuredly NOT written as an attack or in competition -- but just the opposite. We should all be giving each other Wake Up calls.
I agree that it's love that makes the difference but for me, it's the opposite: I think it's 'funnier' to think a profanity against someone not loved e.g. slow walkers but I can't find anything funny about swearing at someone you love, who loves you and is dependent on you to help regulate their feelings.
I know I'm in the minority about this book but I just don't think "it's a joke" is an acceptable excuse for something that celebrates adult emotional immaturity and inability to empathise.
I agree. Saying that this book is a comfort to struggling parents scares me because it sends the message that thinking these thoughts is okay. That it's okay to (secretly) verbally abuse your child. That it's okay not to empathise with them.
I see your point but I think you're being kind in your interpretation. The book's popularity isn't sparking a debate on sleep practices, it's sparking support for a backlash against children's rights. People are responding positively to the relief they feel that the book is giving them permission to give up on trying to empathise with their children. The book celebrates adult abuse of power and the inequality of children.
Reverse the points of view - for the slow walker it is: "Back the fck up and stop walking up my butt". A relatively equal response and potentially funnier than the child in this book who is thinking: "I'm finding it hard to sleep. You have mummy to help you and I don't even have my small bear. I'm young and don't have much experience doing this yet so I wonder if a drink will help. Or going to the toilet. Why won't you help me? Why are you getting angry with me? Calm the fck down and love me like you should."
Thank you for your opinion Chris. I couldn't agree more.
Thank you Cassie. I think many victims of abuse would share your opinon. I do.
Thank you Dr Jen for your comment.
I agree that this book should not be available in public libraries. It's a danger to public health. I know Karen Spears Zacharias' response was unpopular but I agree with her: a book that incited hatred against any other minority group - even in the guise of 'a joke' - wouldn't get this reception.
I completely agree with this train of thought - thought inform beliefs and behaviours. It isn't okay to even think "GTFTS" because as soon as you do, your thoughts are letting you know that you are becoming disconnected from your child's needs. And your child needs you. As soon as this thought enters your head, you need to step back from it. Not walk straight into it laughing!
I agree that some people are being too kind in their interpretations of the book to explain their own amusement by it. The book is literally about a father who is verbally abusing his child. That's not funny to me.
"The father, if he were truly abusive, would have abandoned the child on page one. The situation is only recognizable to parents who actively help the child to sleep." I strongly disagree with this. You're describing neglect as abuse. Many "truly" abusive parents tormet their victims for lengthy periods without "abandoning" them.
wow. some people seem to have read a different book than I did.
I heard a dad stick with it, give his child every opportunity to explore getting to sleep, tell his kid they did 'everything else' perfectly, and make fun of himself more than anything else. I guess you hear what you want to hear. I heard inner dialogue, and sometimes saying fuck to a kid that doesn't know the difference between the words fuck and duck, others heard abuse.
I guess they would think I abuse my 10 month old breastfeeding, co-sleeping, in-my-arms-or-sling-90%-of-her-waking-hours, sung to sleep every night/nap since her birth kiddo. And, wait for it...I have cursed in front of her, about her. 'fuck me! you did NOT just poop thru your diaper for the third time today, ha ha ha, mommy gets to clean up poop again! Thanks love!'
Lighten up folks, adults swear, and sometimes it CAN be done without anger or malice. Intent and context are very important. My daughter knows more from my actions about my love for her rather than a few expletives peppering my language. come over to my house for five minutes and you will either walk away saying -'wow, I was wrong. fuck is so not that big of deal as far as words go, 'hate' is much worse' or you'll call cps for my use of the word fuck, GASP, in front of my kid. you won't call cps because I am abusing my kid though. seriously, lighten up. I know parents that would rather die than use the word fuck, but don't hesitate to smack their kid for the slightest infraction.
Neither abusive nor neglectful describes a parent who sticks around reading, singing, and otherwise parenting a child to sleep for nearly an hour.
I pretty much agree with this. As I think I mentioned upthread, I make a big distinction with my kids as to whether someone is saying "fuck you" or "wow, that's fucked up, sorry to hear it". Admittedly, this case lies somewhere in between: the dad is expressing irritation, but not directly namecalling. Which is why I'm a bit ambivalent about the book, but I can't agree with those who unequivocally denounce it.
I agree - "fck you" is my most hated expression of the word (to me, it's a threat to rape). And I agree that direct name-calling is undoubtedly abusive. But I think that the humour of this book lies in the fact that it blurs those boundaries, and there's a danger in that.
I think the title and concept is funnier than its actual execution. Whether it gets boring or offensive, most of the humour gets lost in the lengthy verse. Tim Minchin's Lullaby is funnier because it develops the concept with only one use of the F-word (that I still don't like). It's also to a baby and I understand the humour in that more. Whereas GTFTS is about a young child who is old enough to ask for her small bear, a drink, etc. She's old enough to engage in an exchange that nurtures mutual empathy. I don't think it's funny to extend the faux-abuse to withhold love and help in the form of e.g. not retrieving her small bear: " F--- your stuffed bear, I'm not getting you s---" Really? That's just cruel and not funny anymore.
P.s. I have a problem with the F-word in general because it refers to sex. What are we saying about sex when we use it to curse with? In contrast, I don't have a problem with using the word "s---" to curse with!
Those who find this book offensive aren't saying you're wrong or an abusive parent if you find it funny. It's just about point of view. If you're a parent who is almost always loving and identifies with that moment of exasperation being expressed by the title of this book, then of course it's funny. But if you're someone who works with at-risk children or who was a child of abuse (as some of the people above who find the book offensive are) - and even if they're also parents - they identify with something else: the cruelty of the (fictional) father's attitude toward his daughter. Victims of abuse become acute to the warning signs of an abusive tirade and being told GTFTS sounds like just that. When you come to this book with that in mind, you just can't find it funny. You're not wrong to find it funny but nor am I wrong to find it offensive.
The thing is, people always think abuse is what the next person does (worse). He who swears at his kids thinks, "At least I don't hit them." She who hits her kids thinks, "But I don't beat them up!" To many people, the book is harmless. They're the ones who wouldn't abuse their children even when they think "GTFTS". To others, we can see the danger in becoming too complacent about 'the thin edge of the wedge' because there ARE parents who, when they think "GTFTS", are on a slippery slope toward abusing their child.
I think it's important to keep that in mind while we're laughing at the book.
My point is that we just will never agree. We are reading two different books. i hear tenderness and love in this book - you hear rage. and btw- don't jump to the conclusion that you speak for all adult children from abusive families. you certainly don't speak for me, thanks.
I guess some people will be abrasively and unpleasantly defensive esp those whose own experiences of abuse shade into normal. And that only goes to prove the concerns of others.
[...] and which is either “the best children’s book since ‘Goodnight Moon,’ ” or a symptom of all that is wrong with parenting, depending on which Web site you read. Over on babble.com the book sparked a debate over whether it [...]
Oh gosh.
As if you (and most of your readers) already didn't have enough cause to be irked by me.... guess what? I dated Adam Mansbach for a little bit in high school.
Personally, this book totally fits my sense of humor, but I see what you're saying, Annie. I appreciate you making me think a little deeper about it.
But um, regardless of what you think of his book.... He was a really good kisser. (***feminist blogger sheepishly running out the door***)
FFF, Lucky for you and any offspring that your romance with Mansbach didn't go further -- because, no doubt, the severely abused children would have carried their rage into their adult life, married and had kids of their own [thanks to inheriting the amazing kissing ability], which would have been severely abused. And all this would have gone on for generation after generation, resulting in the end of the human race.
FFF:
I think most of my readers loved the book and disagreed with my opinion of it. So you're probably okay. ;)
Ha, it's a small world after all. Weird.
LOL. And we're both pretty cute, too. Lethal combination.
I was the victim of severe emotional abuse (I actually have a reactive attachment disorder) but as the frazzled mother of a very frequent night waker I find this book hilarious. I find that this book doesn't make any sense at all if you imagine it in a context of abuse. It's all about the contrast between the outward restraint shown by the father and the exasperation in his inner monologue. Granted, I would never say anything like that to my child nor would I read this book to him, but as an adult read, I see nothing disrespectful about it.