What do we want children to read?

 This was Susie O'Brien in the state newspaper this morning. I am, with permission, repeating it in full here. This is what we are up against. 

Roald Dahl’s iconic book The Twits has been described as outdated,

abusive, violent, cruel and discriminatory towards men with facial hair.

The 1981 global favourite is on the primary school curriculum for English

classes in this state and is widely used as a classroom text in several

other states.

But a new analysis by Dr Mellie Green from the Faculty of Education at

Southern Cross University has found the book’s continued use in schools

“raises a professional dilemma for contemporary teachers and teacher

educators”.

Much-loved humorous moments such as of the “hairy-faced men” who

don’t wash their faces, the “boy pie”, “ugly” Mrs Twit and upside-down

monkeys are singled out as “problematic” and “outdated”.

Dr Green argued the book, which has sold over 16 million copies and been

translated into 41 languages, showed a “lack of inclusion, reliance on

ridicule, stereotyping, and the “normalisation of cruelty as humour”.

In particular, she said the book contains “derogatory stereotyping” of men

with beards.

“While framed as humour, (it) constructs facial hair as suspicious,

unhygienic, and morally suspect, inviting readers to participate in the

ridicule of an entire group,” Dr Green said in an article in The Australian

Journal of Language and Literacy.

Mr Twit’s beer drinking is also highlighted as problematic; Dr Green noted

alcohol was “an established risk factor for domestic and family violence”.

Dr Green also described the book as being “about abuse, coercive power,

and fear framed as humour” as well as domestic violence.

“In The Twits, Mrs Twit’s appearance is repeatedly and viciously attacked

by her husband; ‘Have you ever seen a woman with an uglier face than

that? I doubt it’.”

Dr Green also said “threats of violence towards children are also

repeatedly framed as comic moments” such as when boys are glued to a

tree and when Mr Twit threatens to cook them into a “boy pie”.

The Advertiser https://todayspaper.adelaidenow.com.au/html5/reader/production/defau...

1 of 2 4/27/2026, 7:50 AM

“The Twits fails to offer the kind of literary richness that allows for

discussion of complex characters, multiple interpretations, or nuanced

social themes,” she said.

Dr Green did not say the book should be removed from school reading lists

but argued it should be more critically assessed.

She accused it of “normalising offensive portrayals” and said there was a

need for “greater professional discernment in text selection”.

Colleen Harkin, director of education programs and research fellow at the

Institute of Public Affairs, said critics of The Twits such as Dr Green

“misunderstand both Dahl’s work and young readers themselves”.

“Young recognise the absurdity, exaggeration, matter-of-fact egregious

and gleeful nonsense in Dahl’s work,” she told The Advertiser.

“It’s what makes many young readers roll on the floor in hysterics …

critics underestimate children’s intelligence,” she added. 

My niece and nephews adored Dahl. Their children still do. All of them have watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory multiple times. Every other child I have ever known who has had contact with Dahl's books for children have also enjoyed them. They have laughed and laughed. They have repeated things from them, told me enthusiastically about them. Their parents have groaned and protested at being pestered to read the books "again".

Dahl's books are not great literature but they are still great books. They are ridiculous. They are permission to make fun of things we are not normally permitted to deal with in that way. They are funny.

Apparently this is not acceptable to people like Dr Green. I was reminded of something in a book published in the mid-sixties. In "Pauline" by Margaret Storey there is a point where orphaned Pauline hears her seven year old cousin singing in the bath. Betty is singing about "fifteen men on a dead man's chest" but Betty stops singing when her father explains what it means. All the magic of the moment has gone. Dr Green and others apparently do not see this as important. It is more important for the child to be educated into the correct way thinking. 

It is like that moment in the library when the young girl looked up at me and said, "I'm sick of AIDS and death and divorce. I just want a good adventure story." That was so many years ago now but the situation has, if anything, become worse. Oh we have reprints of Enid Blyton and all the "Tree house" type books but somewhere along the way we have lost other books, those "good adventure stories" which are rooted in the world and not in fantasy.  We have lost the sort of books where a child can believe "this is real. It could have happened to me."  

If you doubt me then what about the child who told me, "There are no real adventure stories any more, not the sort that might happen to me. It's all dragons and magic and stuff and I like it but all the stories about kids who are supposed to be like me are about the sort of thing we get told we have to believe." 

The "have to believe" was apparently issues about gender, race and other social issues. If anyone doubts me I glanced at a book while waiting by the table of remainders the newsagent has outside. It was intended for young teens and it is the story of a boy whose mother takes on a surrogacy for a male couple.  Perhaps I should have bought it and read it and educated myself but I actually found myself thinking, "Is this really want teens want to read or is it what adults think they should be reading?" 

I had to give away a very large collection of children's literature when I moved. It has bothered me ever since. I am beginning to realise why the children around me saw me as a lending library. I had found and collected what they wanted to read.  

The "Welcome to Country" protests

have to stop.

I know, I have written about this elsewhere and others will write about it today. They will say it is "disrespectful" and more.

Yes, it is "disrespectful" but it is disrespectful on more than one level. It is disrespectful of the person delivering the address. They have been asked to do something. I may not agree with what they are doing but they have been asked to do it. In the highly unlikely event I was the one delivering the address I would expect people to at least be quiet. No, you don't have to pay attention. You can think about anything else but be polite. Do not interrupt. 

It is disrespectful to people whose ancestors lived here before white settlement. Does that matter? Yes, it does. My ancestors came from Scotland. If someone without Scots ancestry turned up at the Caledonian Society and booed a traditional welcome there I would feel, at very least, uncomfortable especially if it was done on Burns Night or St Andrew's Day or Hogmanay. No, they are not "sacred" but they often mean something special to Scots.

The booing at yesterday's ANZAC ceremonies goes further than that. It was disrespectful to all service personnel everywhere. That is unacceptable. It is the sort of behaviour that would come from the louts who might have done much more serious harm to the little war memorial had my friend's husband not gone and stood quietly there two days ago. 

But I also believe any "welcome" or "acknowledgment" is inappropriate at any time. It is especially inappropriate on this occasion.  It is a political act where no political act should be present. The "welcome" and the "acknowledgment" ceremonies are political acts. They are not welcoming. They are designed to divide us, to remind us of claims about "theft", thefts in which none of us had any part but for which we are told we must be held accountable. All too often they are delivered by people whose own ancestors are among those being welcomed. How do you reconcile that? 

For service personnel this must be particularly difficult. Those few left who served in WWII must find it even more difficult. ANZAC Day should be about the men and women who served this country, nothing more and nothing less. 

Vandalising war memorials

needs to be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. Kicking them is not on either. It will lead to vandalising them later if left unchecked.

There were more than a couple of teenage louts who thought this would be "fun" yesterday. They were in a local "green space". It isn't really a park as such, just an area of grass with a small memorial.  It's usually a quiet space, one where people can sit on the only seat and just take a break or rest on their walk home. I don't often go that way.

I was dropping off some books to a person who lives in a house that looks out on the space. She had come out to greet me and it was then we saw the boys. They must have known the memorial was there because they immediately began kicking it.

The woman I was visiting went to her door and said something to her husband. He came out and, without hesitation, advanced on the boys. They jeered at him and us. They did not scatter as I thought they might. They defied him, telling him "There's nothing you can do Grandpa".

I was seriously worried by then. 

I need not have been. Someone in the next house had heard the shouting and come out. He was filming the entire thing on his phone although the boys were not aware of it. "Grandpa" did nothing. He just stood there. He stared at them. He went on staring at them.  It obviously bothered them. They left.

When they had gone he walked over to the memorial and carefully dusted some grass off. He picked up a can of spray paint by the very edges. His neighbour came over and filmed the rest. I left.

My friend phoned me last night "just to reassure". Yes, the police had been. Photographs had been taken. "They decided they did not need to interview you," she told me, "It's all there on film. L...and M... spent the rest of the morning clearing the mess up. When the men arrived this afternoon it was all cleared away."

There was a small Dawn Service there this morning. My friend's husband kept watch all night. The paint had not been used.

I wonder what the police will do, if they do anything at all. The evidence is there on film but will they find the boys? 

I  hope they do. I hope they do more than simply warn them but I know it is unlikely. It is the sort of thing the boys will probably boast about. I would like to sit them down, one at a time, and have them listen to the men I have known over my lifetime - the men who made it possible for those louts to be there yesterday.    

Living in a "hall of residence"

at a university is not for the faint hearted now. There was a dance at one recently. It began at eight in the evening and officially ended at midnight. Yes, shock! Horror! 

Apparently twenty-seven residents who live across the street from the venue complained about the noise. Really?

When I was at teacher training college there was no residence for the students. You lived at home, with relatives, in rental accommodation or - in my case - you lived in a boarding school. (I was "earning" my board and lodging as a very junior housemistress.) I therefore did not see a "hall of residence" until I went to university on the other side of the world. 

It was not your typical student hall of residence. It was a "post-graduate" residence. I was one of the youngest, if not the youngest, student there. There were "students" in their forties and fifties. There was someone writing a book about aged care who was close to retirement, another doing some research who was about the same age. Most of the residents came from other parts of the world. The place was, as such places go, very quiet. In the evenings we retired to our rooms and worked. It is what we were there for. 

I eventually moved from there to a similar establishment that was self-catering. I occasionally saw other students in the communal kitchen. Once in a while someone would suggest a visit to whatever free entertainment was available. None of us had any money for frivolities. Very occasionally we would spend 65p on a ticket to a concert or the theatre.

Back in Downunder I had no intention of returning to university but it became increasingly obvious I needed to know much more about the law, international law, tort law, law and medicine, law and the social sciences. I sighed. I put in an application. I applied to a hall of residence too. Accepted into these places I found myself a little older, but not that much older, and a little less happy with the noise. I solved the problem by spending long hours in the Law library. Right around me the youngest students, mostly straight out of school, were enjoying life. 

At least it seemed that way. It did not take long to discover all the problems they were facing. There were students who were happy and working hard. There were students who were not happy and still working hard. There were students who discovered the courses they had chosen were not right for them, who discovered alcohol and drugs. I was not really surprised by any of this. There was enough in the media to tell me it would be going on.  I expected social activities. The law had changed and there was now a student "bar" on the premises and in the university grounds. I never visited the former and I still do not know where the latter is! I wasn't being a prude. I don't drink alcohol and even someone just a few years older would not have been welcome in the residence bar. I suspect it was also where the cannabis was exchanged. Hard drugs were not in evidence but cannabis was rife. I would come back from a Saturday in the library and find someone had opened my bedroom window from the outside so I would not have a foul smelling room. They were pretty good about that. I knew to keep my mouth shut - and to listen when someone banged on the door looking for help.

I did some more post-grad work at another university and was asked to live in a small self-catering unit of fourteen students. It was quieter but there were still issues. The Asian girls tended to be very quiet and tidy. The boys were less so but still quieter and tidier than the more local students. Those students would leave a mess in the kitchen and the "music" would be full blast occasionally. I did not like it because I am a "quiet" person but I recognised it was part of life in residence. The only thing complaining would have done was isolate me. 

I am not sure I could do it now. I think I am too old for noisy, communal living. I dread the thought of being bundled into a nursing home and living communally again. I like my own space, my own quiet. 

If the student who lives next door to me now wants a party though what would I do? 

I would not complain about a one off on a Saturday night the way those other residents in the area did. I would try to remember what it was like being away from parental supervision and control and how we damn well needed to do it. It was part of growing up. It is only when you go on doing it to excess it becomes a real problem.   

That NDIS announcement

has been made. 

As I expected the first thing which happened was an alarmed call to me. "What's this going to mean for K...'s package?"

My answer to that was, "Nobody is going to take K...'s package away. It might be reviewed at some point but even without the NDIS you would have been getting extra help."

The NDIS was designed to provide help for people like K...  She is so severely physically disabled she cannot do anything for herself. She cannot speak. She is fed through a tube because she cannot swallow. She has the intellectual understanding of, at most, a two year old child.  Her parents did an amazing job of caring for her. Her father is no longer alive but her mother, now in her eighties, goes to see her daughter in the "group house" every day. She worries about what will happen to K... when she is no longer there to help.

"I would miss her dreadfully but I wish she would go before me so I would know she was safe," her mother tells me. What a think to have to wish!

The NDIS was supposed to be for people like K. It was not intended to provide football boots and a carer to take a boy with behavioural issues to after school sport. Yes, they are behavioural issues. He is not "autistic". He has some learning issues but they are not severe. He has extra tutorial sessions. They require extra effort on his part, an effort he is not making. He is the only child and life revolves around what he demands. He is a bully at school and has been suspended for his behaviour more than once. He has been "assessed" more than once and each time his "package" has been increased. His mother told me, quite proudly, that he is now getting more than $30,000 a year in funding. He loves the extra attention but is it doing any good? That is highly debatable. It is not what the NDIS was intended to cover. 

The NDIS is doing the job it was intended to do for another child I know. She is now five and this year is being "home-schooled". It is not by choice but because she is physically too frail to go to school. She is a very intelligent child who wants to go to school. Her package includes funding for attending a "gym class" - actually a highly specialised exercise session. The sessions are designed to try and build up enough strength to handle at least a half day at school next year. If she can handle that then she will attend school full time the following year but there will still need to be someone available to give her some help to handle her medical needs.  Her father told me, "We are hoping we can cut back on the funding as she learns to handle more herself. " 

I had her here for a couple of ours recently when her grandmother could not help as she usually does. We did some craft together and at one point I asked, "Do you want me to do it or would you like to try doing it yourself?" Her immediate response was, "I want to do it."  It has taken time and training and an expectation that she will try to do what she can to get to that response. It made me think that the NDIS needs to be about more than funding. It needs to be about an expectation of effort as well. Yes, it is "not fair" this child will have a life long physical issue but her parents are teaching her that this means she will always have to make the effort to cope.

Perhaps this is where we have gone wrong with the NDIS. It should not be about "services" or "money" but about assistance only where assistance is really needed.  For the K..s of this world it should be about dignity and the occasional treat because she can do nothing for herself. For the other two it should be about making them as independent as possible but making sure they are putting the effort in so funding is doing the job it was intended to do. 

Building a house is

something I have observed but never done. To me it looks complicated and expensive. I am sure those who do it welcome anything that makes it less complicated and less expensive.

The first place I called home was a tin shed on the top of a small hill on the edge of a small country town. It was the only accommodation available for my parents. The Senior Cat was teaching in the primary school. My mother filled in for the teachers of both the primary and secondary school if they were away ill. This went on happening until I arrived and Mum had to deal with caring for a baby in a tin shed where there was linoleum placed directly over the ground. Water was pumped via the windmill which, if the wind blew strongly enough, provided a weak and intermittent supply of electricity.

My parents must have been watching the building of the two rows of "Housing Trust" houses down the hill. This was post-war government accommodation. It was intended for the teachers and similar government workers. The houses were the cheapest to build fibro-asbestos houses with their "Metters no.5" wood burning stoves and their "chip heater" hot water in the bathroom. My parents thought it was luxury after the shed.

Now there would be outrage if that sort of new housing was offered to young people. They want something much more substantial and they want air-conditioning to cater for "climate change". They want an instant hot water service and much more.

This is part of the problem with the housing supply of course. People want far more now and they want it from the start. My parents were retired before they built their own home. It was only possible because they saved and commuted some of their superannuation to do it. Prior to that, out in "the country", they were forced to rent the sub-standard accommodation supplied. There was no other accommodation available. On their return to the city they had no choice but to move in to the house my mother's parents had lived in, a house which held many unhappy memories. Yes, they could have stayed there but the Senior Cat was determined Mum should have her "own" home. 

They built a house on a rare vacant block of land not too far from where I now live. It is like many other houses built by the same company. The rooms are not large and it did not come with air-conditioning or landscaping but it did have hot water and electricity. My parents did the rest. Even in retirement they did it gradually. They did it as they could afford it and by deciding their priorities. It is not how things are done now. It is apparently acceptable to go deeper into debt and have it all from the start.

I may be wrong but I suspect it is something which adds greatly to the cost of housing. "Oh, it will be cheaper to do it now while we are building" is something I have heard more than once. Is it? 

Perhaps we need to rethink expectations and rethink priorities. I know I am fortunate I have what I have. It is not perfect but I have something which is actually far better than what my parents started out in. When I said this to a young girl who is about to get married she was shocked. She and her husband to be already have plans for a house with a patio and a pool and "proper air-conditioning" provided by solar panels and more. They are both earning very good money and I give them credit for their determination to save but they still want more. "It's what everyone needs now," I was told. Is it? Would the "housing crisis" be less if people wanted less to start with? 

The NDIS is not working

and it is time for a complete overhaul or an even more drastic complete scrapping.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme started out with the best of intentions. It was meant to be certainty that the basic needs of people with disabilities would be met. It no longer does that.

I know a woman with Down Syndrome. Her sister is her legal guardian and has Power of Attorney over this woman's affairs. The woman herself gets a pension for which she "works" at a centre for people with disabilities. This woman can read and write at a basic level. She lives in a tiny unit which she keeps spotlessly neat and clean. Yes, she is a "success" story but she is still vulnerable and someone, in this case her sister, needs to keep an eye on her affairs. Recently the centre management tried to take over this woman's affairs. She was called in to the office and asked to sign some forms which would have given the centre control over her financial affairs. One of the consequences was to be told she would need to move into a "group" house "because we (management) will be paying all your bills now". This is what alerted her sister to what was going on.

The resultant mess has taken some time to sort out. It has taken her sister many hours to do with some help from me.The centre made all sorts of excuses but the reality is they wanted control because there is money to be made out of having control. I made some inquiries of other people who are "working" there and yes, they have all been asked to effectively sign over their financial affairs so the centre has control. Those who have guardians or interested family or friends now have someone looking into the situation. The centre is running at a loss but those running it are getting and excellent income. 

There is too much of this sort of thing going on. It will always go on but not enough is being done to investigate it. The entire scheme has been seen as a means of making money by some. However much it is denied the fraud element is high.

There are far too many people receiving benefits for things which are not needed. The Down Syndrome woman was paying for a "cleaning service". She does her own cleaning. She is paying rent and the rent is reasonable. Her landlord is happy with her, indeed told me he wished the other tenants were as good as she is. The idea she might move into a group house and share a bedroom left him shaking his head.  "Making money out of that," was his comment.

The matter is now resolved after a fashion. There may or may not be consequences for those in charge of the centre. They will almost certainly argue "mistakes with paper work" and "this is what she said she wanted" and "we have to do what we believe is best for the client" if the matter goes any further. My guess is they will be given a warning and nothing will be done. It is much easier not to do anything.

This is why it is also easier to allow people to go on receiving benefits for services they do not need, perhaps should never have received. Arguing with them and cutting their benefits is just too much effort. It is all being paid for by other people's taxes.

The entire system needs to be rethought. I suspect I could go in and that my friend S... could go in and cut expenditure by half. It would leave some unhappy people who believe they have a "right" to some services but it might leave money for people who need help and are not getting it.