# TSA Propaganda in a children's book



## J.R. Thomson (Mar 30, 2011)

Just stumbled onto this...

Edit - I've decided to link to the image instead of embedding it here. Just wanted to say I didn't originally upload this image, I found it on Twitter:

http://p.twimg.com/Ay1vq-0CAAEtO3C.jpg:large


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

CabanaBooks.com said:


> Just stumbled onto this...


And she was pleased?

Fifty Shades of Charlotte's Web.

I am now terrified.


----------



## J.R. Thomson (Mar 30, 2011)

Gregory Lynn said:


> And she was pleased?
> 
> Fifty Shades of Charlotte's Web.
> 
> I am now terrified.


lol


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Good grief.

No comment.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Honestly, as this one page is completely out of context, it's basically impossible to judge the whole book and draw a conclusion that it's negative propaganda as you seem to imply.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Honestly, as this one page is completely out of context, it's basically impossible to judge the whole book and draw a conclusion that it's negative propaganda as you seem to imply.


It's a drawing of two TSA agents, both frowning and looking angry, holding her hands up and wanding her. Two of them, each with one arm. And everyone in the picture is frowning but the little girl who is being searched. Regardless of the context, it's quite a statement (though the jury is out, without context, whether it's TSA propaganda or anti-TSA propaganda, or just bad taste).

Even if the book is about a precocious little pig who's done something to upset authorities (and that's what has her all pleased), my word. It wouldn't be a book I'd read my small child.


----------



## MH Sargent (Apr 8, 2010)

Gregory Lynn said:


> And she was pleased?
> 
> Fifty Shades of Charlotte's Web.
> 
> I am now terrified.


^^^^This. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that she was pleased.


----------



## gspeer (Nov 10, 2010)

Another alternative: Someone who's a pretty good artist drew this stand-alone panel as a 1) editorial cartoon, 2) put-on to stir outrage, or 3) both of the above.

Where was the picture? Was it in a book? Or was it simply online somewhere -- Flickr, FB, etc.?

I don't do a lot of online images, so would have no idea where it came from or may have originated.

But I certainly find it a cleverly done "dig" at TSA.

Gary


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*shrug* Apparently the pig also destroys Venice;  another idea I'd not present to my grandkids, who are perfectly capable of doing so. 



Betsy


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Surprised nobody's posted this yet...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

David,

I worry about you...


Betsy


----------



## MH Sargent (Apr 8, 2010)

David, 
You crack me up. Too funny!


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

It's a good drawing, and that's all I really know about it.

Out of context, who knows what it means? It might be a sweet story.

Getting wanded at the airport is a part of life now, even for a kid. As for frowning TSA agents, I ask you--have you ever seen one smile? I don't think they're supposed to. It's probably better for kids to encounter them in books first, before they have to raise their arms and be wanded in real life.

What's the book?


----------



## Victoria lane &amp; R.T. Fox (Nov 10, 2009)

What do they do when a kid has a load in their underpants,  Ha Ha smells like what?  Then the Senior TSA officer is in charge.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

I agree the picture is out of context, so there's no telling what the point is.  Maybe Olivia had been afraid to fly for security reasons, and was glad that the TSA people were being thorough.  Maybe Olivia, like a lot of curious kids, thought it would be fun to be 'wanded.'  And I don't think the TSA searchers look "mean" or "angry" at all.  To me they look unhappy.  Maybe Olivia put up such a fuss when seeing other people searched that she wanted to be searched too, so they're going through the motions just to shut her up.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

This is from a rather well-known and (possibly previously) well-loved series of children's books. CabanaBooks  isn't the only one that found the illustration creepy. It got pretty thoroughly panned in the reviews. 

The TSA agents looked scary and considering how often they are accused of groping people, putting their hands on the child and her saying she was "pleased" did not and does not go over well. If anyone wants to know what book this is from, I can tell them but I'm not sure if it's allowed to post the information.

Believe me, what CabanaBooks said about it was mild to the reactions of some reviewers.

Edit: And no, she hadn't been frightened to travel and children ARE routinely wanded and searched.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Regardless, I don't think it's our place (or fair) to post snippets of other books here for criticism.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jena H said:


> Regardless, I don't think it's our place (or fair) to post snippets of other books here for criticism.


It may not be and that's why I felt it might not be allowed to mention the title, although if anyone is curious it probably wouldn't be that hard to track down.

Incidentally, for young children the earlier books in the series are extremely good. But this one? Not so much so.

Edit: But honestly, I think that is a seriously creepy illustration and a lot of people couldn't figure out what the author was thinking. I mean... really. That actually wasn't my worst problem with this particular children's book. It had several issues that got some serious criticism.


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> David,
> 
> I worry about you...
> 
> ...


I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every moment of it!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jena H said:


> Regardless, I don't think it's our place (or fair) to post snippets of other books here for criticism.


I debated as to whether to post the link, but the questions was asked, and we post reviews of books on KB all the time. Our main question in Admin is to whether it's a Book Corner question or not, which I'm tending to think it is....

Betsy


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Betsy, I hope you don't move this thread out of the Writer's Cafe. The Olivia book, if you're inclined to look at it that way, offers an interesting example of propaganda in story. I think that's an important theme for all of us, writers and readers, to consider. At any rate, there's quite a tradition of pigs and propaganda in literature. First Orwell's Napoleon, Golding's Lord of the Flies, and now Falconer's Olivia.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Betsy, I hope you don't move this thread out of the Writer's Cafe. The Olivia book, if you're inclined to look at it that way, offers an interesting example of propaganda in story. I think that's an important theme for all of us, writers and readers, to consider. At any rate, there's quite a tradition of pigs and propaganda in literature. First Orwell's Napoleon, Golding's Lord of the Flies, and now Falconer's Olivia.


Exactly. Which would make it a perfect Book Corner thread. This is not a discussion that's limited to craft. Y'all can post in the Book Corner about something like this, you know. You just can't say "This is exactly the theme that I used in my book, "When Pigs Go Wild." Which I haven't seen in this thread so far... 

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

And my point was simply that the illustration was totally out of context. . . to me, it's not really fair to point to ONE illustration in a book and start labeling the whole book.  I've not read it and really have no interest in searching it out. . . . but I can look at this picture and come up with several simple plots about a girl who loves to be mischievous that would make Olivia's pleasure perfectly reasonable.  

Again. . . .I've not read the full book in question. . . . I'm ONLY addressing the picture which, while I don't consider it particularly good artwork, doesn't scream 'creepy' or 'disturbing' or 'propaganda' or anything else, really, to ME.  Well, except, "not very good artwork."  Obviously. . . .others may see it differently.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

beat you by 38 seconds....


Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Didn't know it was a race. . . . . I vote move it to the Corner.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I debated as to whether to post the link, but the questions was asked, and we post reviews of books on KB all the time. Our main question in Admin is to whether it's a Book Corner question or not, which I'm tending to think it is....
> 
> Betsy


It probably is a Book Corner question, Betsy. (And a lot of authors do show up there  )

I am not at all sure it was intended as propaganda. It could have been _intended_ to be reassuring to children who do have this experience in airports. It just happens to be horribly done and came across as... YUCK. A lot of people find it seriously creepy.

Throw in that warrant-less airport searches are a political powder keg. Then the ending, which I won't go into but which I found at least as offensive, and I have to question the author's judgement.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Always a race...and I agree.

Folks, we're moving this to the Book Corner as we've thought from early in the thread that it is a Book Corner discussion and it's getting more so all the time. Let's get some more reader input!

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Has anyone mentioned that this is from the children's book _Olivia Goes to Venice_ by Ian Falconer?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, I did...unless the post disappeared. Maybe Ann removed it to mess with my mind. Off to check... 

ETA: Nope, still there: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,121707.msg1809966.html#msg1809966

Betsy


----------



## Ian Fraser (Mar 8, 2011)

Barely trained, former burger-flippers in pseudo 'police' outfits instilling a sense of confidence at unlawful searching of the individual? 

I think its an interesting cartoon. It wouldn't be out of place in pre-war Germany, right down to the demands for ones 'papers.' 

All in the name of 'keeping citizens safe.' Ya, right. The cartoon is unashamedly Fascist propaganda in action. 

A small child 'pleased' at being illegally searched, in contravention of the Constitution of the USA? Hello tyranny.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

The worthiness of TSA and their procedures is an old internet forum trope, though this is a new angle on it.

As for the original drawing, I doubt TSA is paying off children's authors to put propaganda into their books. Without knowledge of the context (as others have mentioned) my best guess is that this is a well-intentioned effort by the author and/or publisher to help make airport searches less stressful for kids who read the book...."Oh yeah, I remember this happened to Piglet in Piglet's First Airplane Ride. So obviously it is nothing to freak out over."

As for the wisdom of searching 6-year old kids, or eighty year old little old ladies, keep in mind that nobody thinks that a small child is going to hijack or blow up the plane. But anything that the small child (or doddering oldster) carries on to the plane is available to anyone else on the plane. And the child may be carrying something that her adult guardian may take and use for nefarious purposes!

In the aftermath of a successful plane hijacking or bombing, the managers in charge of TSA do NOT want to feel like failures because they've done less than they could have. And they especially do not want to be grilled by a Congressional committee on C-Span about why they allowed this terrible outrage by failing to do ____fill in the blank___. So they are always going to err on the side of doing more. One of the less desirable consequences of living in a democracy where government is held accountable for what they do. I'd rather put up with this than live in a place where government was NOT held accountable, wouldn't you?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

The Hooded Claw said:


> The worthiness of TSA and their procedures is an old internet forum trope, though this is a new angle on it.
> 
> As for the original drawing, I doubt TSA is paying off children's authors to put propaganda into their books. Without knowledge of the context (as others have mentioned) my best guess is that this is a well-intentioned effort by the author and/or publisher to help make airport searches less stressful for kids who read the book...."Oh yeah, I remember this happened to Piglet in Piglet's First Airplane Ride. So obviously it is nothing to freak out over."
> 
> ...


_Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety_. Benjamin Franklin

Both TSA competence and their methods are questioned far beyond the internet.

Edit: Sorry about that, Betsy. As usual, I'll put down missing a post to having missed my morning caffeine IV.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Both TSA competence and their methods are questioned far beyond the internet.


Of course. By those Congressional Committees I mentioned, among other things. I don't understand what your point is. I personally think they go overboard on some issues, but because of the pressures they face, they are still driven to do what they do by the way the system is set up. Despite thinking they go overboard, I'd do it myself if I was in their job, facing those pressures, and cared about feeling I did a good job. So would most of us.

The Franklin quote is a good one, but merely quoting it doesn't mean the government practice is bad. Does Franklin's quote apply to laws on speed limits? Motorcycle helmets? Restrictions on smoking in a public place? The right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

AAargh.  Try to hold the discussion to propaganda and its use in books, not the merits of the TSA.  This is NOT a discussion for the Book Corner.

Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

The Hooded Claw said:


> Of course. By those Congressional Committees I mentioned, among other things. I don't understand what your point is. I personally think they go overboard on some issues, but because of the pressures they face, they are still driven to do what they do by the way the system is set up. Despite thinking they go overboard, I'd do it myself if I was in their job, facing those pressures, and cared about feeling I did a good job. So would most of us.
> 
> The Franklin quote is a good one, but merely quoting it doesn't mean the government practice is bad. Does Franklin's quote apply to laws on speed limits? Motorcycle helmets? Restrictions on smoking in a public place? The right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?


I didn't go beyond the quote because this isn't the place for the debate about the TSA. I do not think we should give up our right to free travel because of the threat of terrorism which is what we have in effect done. Remember the "horror" in the West at the Communist Bloc denying the right of free travel? I don't agree with you but that's all I'll say on the subject.

Propaganda in literature, particularly children's literature, is a different topic. That looks an awful lot like propaganda but how do you define propaganda? Does it have to be state sponsored? Might it just support the state without being paid for?

I'm not sure.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I honestly don't understand the anti-TSA sentiment. I would not get on a plane that did not have significant screening procedures in place.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Back to the question of whether the drawing in question is propoganda....

Betsy


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Two uniformed thugs (basically drawn to look bulky and thuggish) gripping the wrist of a child and frowning (note mouth and eyebrow lines).

Olivia was pleased.

Because she was a good American.

Yeah, I think it's propaganda.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Does it say she's pleased because she's a good American? This is where Ann's point is important...we only see the picture, not the context and we tend to view it through our own lens. She could be pleased because it was her goal to cause trouble. I may need to look at this book... 

"Drawn to look bulky and thuggish?" Well, as to the bulky part, they are pigs...  off to look at the drawing again.

ETA: As far as the bulk, to me, they don't look any more bulky than the travelling pigs waiting to be screened. Thuggish? They look rather stern... I think I'd have to see more drawings in the book to see how she depicts other adult pigs.

But OK, it's propoganda to you. And to several others. And you'd be in the "propoganda is wrong" camp, I'd guess. 

From my point of view, I don,t know whether the author has drawn a "pro-TSA" piece or a statement on the ridiculousness of wanding small children pigs.

Betsy


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Hi Betsy.

Is there a "propaganda is right" camp? Communication designed to cause one to adopt a point of view without thinking can be considered to be right and proper? Propaganda is an implicitly political act... aaand this is why it's hard to discuss this without getting into politics.

Olivia is pleased, google search indicates, because they are doing their job, of which Olivia implicitly approves.

The writer could not have created this page without intending to convey... aaaaand this is why it's hard to discuss this without getting into politics.


----------



## WVMark (Feb 23, 2011)

Propaganda by government is not good nor right.  As shown by this illustration.

1. Searching children for weapons at an airport.  In the long history of violence in the world, there has yet to be a case where a child with a weapon caused any harm.  Now, we have TSA officials doing just that, contrary to all the known facts.  Also, there is no backpack or tote in the illustration.  This is purely physical body wanding -- a child's at that.

2. This states that the child was "very pleased" to be searched for weapons.  Again, this illustration (no matter the context) is stating that.  However you want to look at it, TSA searches on a child bring a "very pleased" to at least one child.  Is that something a parent wants to instill in their child?

3. I agree that this is propaganda in an illustration and that it would be very hard to keep politics out of the discussion.  I have seen quite a few YouTube videos done by people at airports as TSA officers pat down children. Here, we have wands. Had the illustrator really chosen to show the true nature of the TSA, the illustrator should have shown them patting down the child.  Otherwise, the normal metal detectors are used for nearly all weapons searches.  It's only if you are singled out for "random" inspection or you fail the metal detector that you get wanded, or a pat down.

4. The illustration is showing that children feel more safe when TSA officers use routines that are not normal.  How many people in airport security lines actually get wanded?  Overall, it's a process that isn't normal, but used when a person fails the normal checks.  Set off the metal detector too many times?  You get wanded.  Random check?  Yes, you can get wanded and/or a pat down.  But, usually, you do not see this kind of behavior in the illustration.  So, why is a child very pleased with abnormal procedures by TSA?

5. I find it all too disturbing an illustration for a whole host of reasons, some above.  If it's a children's book, I would never recommend it.  I wouldn't care if it was pro or anti gov't/TSA/whatever.  This just isn't a good illustration for a children's book, no matter the context.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Chris Northern said:


> Hi Betsy.
> 
> Is there a "propaganda is right" camp? Communication designed to cause one to adopt a point of view without thinking can be considered to be right and proper? Propaganda is an implicitly political act... aaand this is why it's hard to discuss this without getting into politics.
> 
> ...


Well, I can see a discussion on whether this is propoganda or not as being done without discussion of the actual principles being propogated. And surely some people somewhere think it's acceptable. For example, if I were to agree with you that it is propoganda, then surely the author who put it in the book thinks it is acceptable.

Did your search turn up an explanation by the author of what is meant by Olivia being pleased?

But perhaps my comment should have been that I take you to be on the side of this is definitely propoganda. If it is propoganda, I'm not convinced of exactly what it is trying to portray--TSA is good? Searching small pigs is bad? TSA personnel are mean? Or that they don't like having to wand a small pig? Not having read the book, I don't know what the context is...perhaps someone who has will weigh in.

I can imagine my 11 year old grandson being pleased with the idea that he was a dangerous individual. His mother, not so much.

Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Does it say she's pleased because she's a good American? This is where Ann's point is important...we only see the picture, not the context and we tend to view it through our own lens. She could be pleased because it was her goal to cause trouble. I may need to look at this book...
> 
> "Drawn to look bulky and thuggish?" Well, as to the bulky part, they are pigs...  off to look at the drawing again.
> 
> ...


I'm trying to parse that comment, Betsy. It *reads* like you are saying that propaganda is sometimes right. Is that really what you are trying to say?

prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/
Noun:

Information, esp. of _a biased or misleading nature_, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Is presenting biased information "right"? I don't think so. I find it hard to believe you think so either.

I am on the fence about whether that particular piece is propaganda or merely in horrible taste. Since I am well aware that there is no hint in the book that there was any REASON for carrying out a search of that nature on Olivia, that has to affect my reaction to it as it did the reactions of many reviewers.

No, her goal was NOT to cause trouble. So that (imo) has to leave one questioning why an author would put such an illustration in a children's book. But it isn't my only problem with the book.

At the end,


Spoiler



the author has Olivia and her family* steal* a brick as a souvenir causing the destruction of a historic monument and they run away. Apparently, such behavior is acceptable, especially if you are American.


 I find the entire book absolutely reprehensible and don't know what the HELL the author was thinking.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

No, as I said in a later post, I was trying to keep the topic on whether or not the image WAS propoganda.  My comment should have been that CN was in the "Is propaganda" camp.  It was not well thought out. 

However, for argument's sake (isn't that what we do here?  ) The definition you posted says "especially of a biased or misleading nature."  (I'm assuming the italics are yours.)  Which to me means that it isn't always of a biased or misleading nature.  So, is it only biased or misleading propoganda that I should be against?  Or should I be against any argument (in the non-angry sense) that is meant to "promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view?" *shrug*  I confess, I don't have strong feelings one way or another about this particular image...there are so many other things I am angry about in real life.  I just find the discussion interesting.  And the willingness to read so much into one image without even knowing where it was from or the context.  Which was why I posted the link to the book in the first place.

As for the book, I think in one of my early posts in this thread, I mentioned that I found the idea of Olivia being distructive in Venice to be the disturbing part of the book....I won't be buying the book.


Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> No, as I said in a later post, I was trying to keep the topic on whether or not the image WAS propoganda. My comment should have been that CN was in the "Is propaganda" camp.
> 
> However, for argument's sake (isn't that what we do here? ) The definition you posted says "especially of a biased or misleading nature." (I'm assuming the italics are yours.) Which to me means that it isn't always of a biased or misleading nature. So, is it only biased or misleading propoganda that I should be against? Or should I be against any argument (in the non-angry sense) that is meant to "promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view?" *shrug* I confess, I don't have strong feelings one way or another...there are so many other things I am angry about in real life. I just find the discussion interesting.
> 
> ...


I didn't think you really meant your comment the way it read, but was trying to figure it out. By the way, the implication of propaganda is always that it is either biased or misleading. I have never seen it used any other way. 

I agree with you about the destructive part. I also find the destructive part (and it was her parents as well as her) and their reaction to it the most disturbing. That part is even worse in some ways that a simple description of it sounds. I think there are other implications you could put on the search picture such as that it is intended to be reassuring to children. I don't find it so (Those TSA guys look MEAN) but I don't know the authors intent. I'm willing to think it was well intended even if poorly executed or thought out.

But when you add in the destructive part and a couple of other illustrations that were a little troubling, I decided to return the book rather than give it as a gift.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JRTomlin said:


> I didn't think you really meant your comment the way it read, but was trying to figure it out. By the way, the implication of propaganda is always that it is either biased or misleading. I have never seen it used any other way.


I agree that the connotation of propoganda is a negative one, but the definiton you provided doesn't say "always."  I'm always looking for that loophole...

Betsy


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Well, I can see a discussion on whether this is propoganda or not as being done without discussion of the actual principles being propogated. And surely some people somewhere think it's acceptable. For example, if I were to agree with you that it is propoganda, then surely the author who put it in the book thinks it is acceptable.


Exactly, and that is what makes the inclusion of the scene a political act.

That it is deliberately suggestive that a willingly submissive attitude be adopted regardless of the attitude and actions of security seems to me to beyond much doubt. _How shall I depict this scene?_ Well, how about two stern security guards, each gripping a wrist and holding Olivia's hands high. _Yeah, that should do it. And as a caption?_ Olivia was pleased.



Betsy the Quilter said:


> But OK, it's propoganda to you. And to several others. And you'd be in the "propoganda is wrong" camp, I'd guess.


I did take your comment to be tongue-in-cheek but suffered a sense of humor failure anyway. My apologies.



WVMark said:


> 3. I agree that this is propaganda in an illustration and that it would be very hard to keep politics out of the discussion. I have seen quite a few YouTube videos done by people at airports as TSA officers pat down children. Here, we have wands. Had the illustrator really chosen to show the true nature of the TSA, the illustrator should have shown them patting down the child. Otherwise, the normal metal detectors are used for nearly all weapons searches. It's only if you are singled out for "random" inspection or you fail the metal detector that you get wanded, or a pat down.


Olivia was pleased to have the difference between subject and citizen made clear to her at such an early age. saves on confusion in later life.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Webster's defines _propaganda_ in three different ways.



> 1. capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
> 2. the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
> 3. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


The first definition is irrelevant to the discussion.

Does the scene from the book spread an idea, information or rumor that would influence the reading child's perspective on airport security practices? It's a well-established fact that small children soak up information like sponges. In the realm of books, this is accentuated by their habit of re-reading (or demanding re-reads). Given all that, does the Olivia/TSA scene have the potential of influencing the child's perspective? Arguably, yes.

Does the scene from the book deliberately spread ideas, facts, or allegations that would further the TSA's cause? This gets into authorial intent, which isn't totally determinable, but I'd say one can make a pretty reasonable guess due to Olivia's expression and the accompanying text. So, arguably yes, as it takes a great deal of deliberate forethought to decide to include something in a book that requires both illustration and text. Stories are not the result of random chance unless you're Jack Kerouac.

It seems virtually impossible to say the scene is not propaganda. However, the question as to whether or not the Olivia-TSA propaganda is good or bad is an entirely different question. Personally, I believe children and their stories should be left out of the equation when it comes to politics.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Chad Winters said:


> I honestly don't understand the anti-TSA sentiment. I would not get on a plane that did not have significant screening procedures in place.


I used to fly a lot, and am certainly not against airplane security (except, of course, when the security staff are high-handed and rude, which happened to me once at London Heathrow). But it's a regretable necessity, not something to be pleased about.

As to whether the TSA are actually behind this, I'd doubt it, but that's not the point. What's really scary is when a mood of passive acceptance starts creeping into the attitudes held by a society, and especially when that thing gets passed on to their young. The first thing that I thought when I saw that drawing and accompanying caption was, _Holy hell, it's Orwell's 'Animal Farm'_ (a novel satirizing the Soviet Union under Lenin and then Stalin, in case you didn't know).


----------



## J.R. Thomson (Mar 30, 2011)

Jena H said:


> Regardless, I don't think it's our place (or fair) to post snippets of other books here for criticism.


I agree and have changed my original post to a link to the image instead of embedding it. I should have mentioned in the beginning that I found this
image from a tweet on Twitter.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Tony Richards said:


> <snip> it's Orwell's 'Animal Farm'[/i] (a novel satirizing the Soviet Union under Lenin and then Stalin, in case you didn't know).


no, i don't know that. did orwell say that? if so, then i'll take his word for it. otherwise, it's all speculation as to what it's about.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

telracs said:


> no, i don't know that. did orwell say that? if so, then i'll take his word for it. otherwise, it's all speculation as to what it's about.


Wikipedia:
"Animal Farm is an allegorical novella by George Orwell published in England on 17 August 1945. According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to and during the Stalin era before the Second World War. Orwell, a democratic socialist, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, especially after his experiences with the NKVD and the Spanish Civil War. In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell described Animal Farm as his novel "contre Stalin"."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CabanaBooks.com said:


> I agree and have changed my original post to a link to the image instead of embedding it. I should have mentioned in the beginning that I found this
> image from a tweet on Twitter.


Obviously, I immediately recognized it. 

The illustration was rather shocking from my point of view but then we have young children in the family. Airport security is a necessity but I will never tell our children to be "pleased" at strangers putting their hands on them, officials or not.

I hardly think the TSA paid for it but not all propaganda by any means is paid for. Much of it is done by individuals with strong beliefs.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

Although I think the execution of the drawing is a little weird, and I'm a big Olivia fan, I do understand what the author/artist was trying to get at. Maybe I see things a little differently with 2 special needs kids. I'm constantly looking for characters they like dealing with situations that might set them off. The whole airport thing is trying for normal children, add in some autism and you're in for a world of fun. I think it's also good to keep in mind that although I'm not fond of the whole pat down, it is a part of flying and something kids will go through if they fly. It's much better to have them think it's going to be okay. The alternative could cause anxiety or additional issues in the line and we all know how well security handles "issues".


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bethany B. said:


> Although I think the execution of the drawing is a little weird, and I'm a big Olivia fan, I do understand what the author/artist was trying to get at. Maybe I see things a little differently with 2 special needs kids. I'm constantly looking for characters they like dealing with situations that might set them off. The whole airport thing is trying for normal children, add in some autism and you're in for a world of fun. I think it's also good to keep in mind that although I'm not fond of the whole pat down, it is a part of flying and something kids will go through if they fly. It's much better to have them think it's going to be okay. The alternative could cause anxiety or additional issues in the line and we all know how well security handles "issues".


I do think he *could* have been trying for a reassuring point in this illustration. If that was what he was going for, the execution was terrible.

Normally I am also an Olivia fan since we have young kids in the family. This one was returned for the reasons that have been much discussed. The "pat down" illustration was just one of them. Too bad, because it is a good series of children's books.


----------



## WVMark (Feb 23, 2011)

Bethany B. said:


> Although I think the execution of the drawing is a little weird, and I'm a big Olivia fan, I do understand what the author/artist was trying to get at. Maybe I see things a little differently with 2 special needs kids. I'm constantly looking for characters they like dealing with situations that might set them off. The whole airport thing is trying for normal children, add in some autism and you're in for a world of fun. I think it's also good to keep in mind that although I'm not fond of the whole pat down, it is a part of flying and something kids will go through if they fly. It's much better to have them think it's going to be okay. The alternative could cause anxiety or additional issues in the line and we all know how well security handles "issues".


I strongly disagree with you. There is no reason for pat downs of children. It should never be part of flying. Letting unknown adults run their hands over children's bodies is just wrong. Have you seen some of the real life videos? Watch them fully and tell me you think what they're doing is okay to do to kids? In **any** other situation, if an adult did that to a child, it would be a legally actionable offense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvFSK1NdXog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3sH1GaO_nw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwXkTO55ns

By allowing this, an adult is pretty much teaching children that it's okay to let strangers in authority run their hands over their bodies. Think about the ramifications. School? Church? Daycare? How do you teach a 3-6 year old that you think it's okay to do in an airport but not everywhere else? You think they'll understand that?

It is deplorable behavior that our government is doing and people are letting them get away with it all in the "pursuit" of "safety". When has a child *ever* committed a terrorist act?

And now, to the point of this thread, we have cartoons telling children that authority figures are allowed to pat them down and they should be very pleased by it. Utterly disgusting to me.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

WVMark said:


> I strongly disagree with you. There is no reason for pat downs of children. It should never be part of flying. Letting unknown adults run their hands over children's bodies is just wrong. Have you seen some of the real life videos? Watch them fully and tell me you think what they're doing is okay to do to kids? In **any** other situation, if an adult did that to a child, it would be a legally actionable offense.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvFSK1NdXog
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3sH1GaO_nw
> ...


Ummmm. What I wasn't saying was that it's okay and I approve but that it's a part of flying. I have to prep my kids for things like this. Take a step down from the soap box. What I was saying was absolutely valid. Did it suddenly come into law that children don't need to have pat downs? No? Or is there an opt out for kids? No? Well then, by all means, lets send them in with no idea what's to come and see what happens.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Please note:  the child is NOT being patted down.  the child is being wanded.  the "agents" are holding her hands, not touching her body.  so you can still tell your child it's not okay for people to touch them.  in all the times i've flown in my life (through NY airports before AND after 9/11), i don't think i've ever seen a child in the situation pictured there.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

telracs said:


> Please note: the child is NOT being patted down. the child is being wanded. the "agents" are holding her hands, not touching her body. so you can still tell your child it's not okay for people to touch them. in all the times i've flown in my life (through NY airports before AND after 9/11), i don't think i've ever seen a child in the situation pictured there.


Which is part of what makes the picture so disturbing ... the blurring of what we currently believe to be acceptable, and what the caption is suggesting might be an acceptable alternative.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

telracs said:


> Please note: the child is NOT being patted down. the child is being wanded. the "agents" are holding her hands, not touching her body. so you can still tell your child it's not okay for people to touch them. in all the times i've flown in my life (through NY airports before AND after 9/11), i don't think i've ever seen a child in the situation pictured there.


Agreed....there seems to be a lot of hyperbole (AKA straw man argumentation)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

telracs said:


> Please note: the child is NOT being patted down. the child is being wanded. the "agents" are holding her hands, not touching her body. so you can still tell your child it's not okay for people to touch them. in all the times i've flown in my life (through NY airports before AND after 9/11), i don't think i've ever seen a child in the situation pictured there.


You take a look at those videos and tell me those children are not being groped. So, NO. YOu can not tell your child it's not okay for people to touch them -- not if they are going to fly in the US.

By the way, since when are strangers allowed to hold a child's hands like that? You can bet I would object IF I were allowed to. But at an airport I wouldn't be. Olivia is being "touched" by having her hands held -- stretched above her head at that -- and children in airports are regularly subjected to invasive body searches.

Edit: We may disagree on whether this is a reasonable representation of that to reassure children who might be frightened by the experience. I don't think so since I think the illustration is threatening enough in itself, but there we might disagree. But are children TOUCHED in such searches? You BET they are.

This is a charming one in which the TSA masher is _supposedly_ wanding the boy but takes the opportunity to feel up his crotch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1B3AubsTBo

Sickening. I am not sure what the solution is but a children's book that says the child should be PLEASED is not the answer.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> You take a look at those videos and tell me those children are not being groped. So, NO. YOu can not tell your child it's not okay for people to touch them -- not if they are going to fly in the US.
> 
> By the way, since when are strangers allowed to hold a child's hands like that? You can bet I would object IF I were allowed to. But at an airport I wouldn't be. Olivia is being "touched" by having her hands held -- stretched above her head at that -- and children in airports are regularly subjected to invasive body searches.
> 
> ...


I agree about the book using the word pleased. It's just a poor choice on the authors part and they really should have thought it through. So do you feel that the process of airport security should have even been addressed or should they have just skipped it? Personally, like I mentioned, I find those sorts of things helpful for my children to understand what it will be like. I only ask since some seem to feel that it shouldn't have been added at all. I can understand not liking the wording or even the dislike of children being searched, I'm not a particular fan of the TSA in general, but we have to be able to address the airport security without scaring children.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bethany B. said:


> I agree about the book using the word pleased. It's just a poor choice on the authors part and they really should have thought it through. So do you feel that the process of airport security should have even been addressed or should they have just skipped it? Personally, like I mentioned, I find those sorts of things helpful for my children to understand what it will be like. I only ask since some seem to feel that it shouldn't have been added at all. I can understand not liking the wording or even the dislike of children being searched, I'm not a particular fan of the TSA in general, but we have to be able to address the airport security without scaring children.


One of my concerns about addressing it at all is whether it can be done in a way that doesn't comes across as propaganda whether it is intended that way or not. I suspect any way it is addressed at least some people will object because it is so politically charged and because the TSA is so often (at best) poorly trained and supervised. (opinion obviously) Groping a child's crotch should be grounds for firing but apparently isn't, so people are already upset about this topic. This makes it difficult to deal with in a child's book.

For myself, I absolutely understand feeling that it needs to be explained to children and explained in a reassuring way. I don't object in principle because it is a fact of life in this world. It is something that children who fly experience.

I simply think that the execution in this case was a massive FAIL. If you just took the word "pleased" out would it have helped?

Well, let me say that the thing with holding both her hands over her head has a certain sexual tone that bothers me as well. It smacks of BDSM. This is just such a sensitive subject that little things like that bring in an "ick" factor. Maybe if her hands had been out to her sides, which is a more common position, and perhaps only one had been touching her hand. The author could have merely said that she was searched and left it at that. I am never PLEASED at a search. It's not a particularly pleasant experience even if it is necessary.

So I THINK I wouldn't object if it were executed more sensitively. (I think it still might get some negative reviews though because of the politics) But as has been commented upon several times, in this particular Olivia the author lost the thread in several ways, and that page may not be the most objectionable. Even change that and I still would have returned the book. I suspect you don't want your children told it is all right to steal, vandalise and run away to avoid the consequences.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> One of my concerns about addressing it at all is whether it can be done in a way that doesn't comes across as propaganda whether it is intended that way or not. I suspect any way it is addressed at least some people will object because it is so politically charged and because the TSA is so often (at best) poorly trained and supervised. (opinion obviously) Groping a child's crotch should be grounds for firing but apparently isn't, so people are already upset about this topic. This makes it difficult to deal with in a child's book.
> 
> For myself, I absolutely understand feeling that it needs to be explained to children and explained in a reassuring way. I don't object in principle because it is a fact of life in this world. It is something that children who fly experience.
> 
> ...


Wow, sounds like a major step away from the Olivia I know. She's a bit of a know it all and troublemaker but not really a bad little girl. No I wouldn't like that at all.

I think you're right, it's a charged regulation that I don't much care for. It would be hard to address in any fashion. I think it would have been better to leave the TSA out of it and just have her walk though the metal detector. Or maybe showing her loading her stuff on the conveyor belt. There were just so many options.

But, from what you said, sounds like it would have been best if it just didn't make it to market.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm commenting on the picture in the Olivia book and only on that particular picture.  Not on the rest of the Olivia book(s). Not on youtube videos.  I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, and I'm not saying that any child should be taught that's okay to be touched by strangers.  But that's not what the picture is showing.  

And please, don't think that you know my feelings about the TSA, the appropriateness of pat downs or any other issue that is NOT related to this particular picture.  If you want to know those, PM me, and we can discuss it.  But this is NOT a thread about the "evils" of the TSA.  If you want one of those, start one in the NQK section.  And maybe I'll answer there.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bethany B. said:


> Wow, sounds like a major step away from the Olivia I know. She's a bit of a know it all and troublemaker but not really a bad little girl. No I wouldn't like that at all.
> 
> I think you're right, it's a charged regulation that I don't much care for. It would be hard to address in any fashion. I think it would have been better to leave the TSA out of it and just have her walk though the metal detector. Or maybe showing her loading her stuff on the conveyor belt. There were just so many options.
> 
> But, from what you said, sounds like it would have been best if it just didn't make it to market.


That it was a major step away from the Olivia that people know and love was a lot of people's reaction. The language was more adult and there was at least one other illustration other than the end where they are responsible for the destruction of a historic monument that disturbed some readers.

I honestly couldn't figure out what he was thinking. Bored with Olivia, maybe? It's happened.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

telracs said:


> I'm commenting on the picture in the Olivia book and only on that particular picture. Not on the rest of the Olivia book(s). Not on youtube videos. I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, and I'm not saying that any child should be taught that's okay to be touched by strangers. But that's not what the picture is showing.
> 
> And please, don't think that you know my feelings about the TSA, the appropriateness of pat downs or any other issue that is NOT related to this particular picture. If you want to know those, PM me, and we can discuss it. But this is NOT a thread about the "evils" of the TSA. If you want one of those, start one in the NQK section. And maybe I'll answer there.


I can't agree, telracs, because the subject of why so many people find this illustration disturbing if not downright offensive is worth discussing and some of us might want to discuss how it could have been done so that it would not be offensive to so many.

You may or may not find it so, but you can't deny (just look at the Amazon reviews) that a lot of people do and NOT just on political grounds.


----------

