I personally thought the crudity unnecessary. For me, it seriously did ruin the playful tone of the book. I also find it very sad that one needs crudity to “wake up” while reading a book, teenager or not. Can’t a book speak for itself? This book, especially, was encouraging us to learn to read that way. And while I can’t speak for your conservative headmasters, I’m fully willing to accept the fact that this means that I’m more conservative when it comes to disgust at crudity. I don’t care who knows that I don’t like crudity.

I’m sincerely glad you enjoyed reading it. Everyone has different standards when they pick up the book and I stand by the fact that for me, the crudity was horribly disappointing. I found it completely out of tone compared to the rest of the book.

Also note that I attend a catholic boarding school and it was our required summer reading. That little comment obviously couldn’t have ‘ruined’ the book too much if a school with headmasters as conservative as mine selected it for the entire student body to read.

I likewise am accepting if it fits a theme (for example, I have no qualms about recommending Catcher in the Rye,  which I loved as a college Freshman, to most people, although it has waaaaay more sexual innuendo and language than does The Uncommon Reader).

Jessica, it was very disappointing. Even if I know people aren’t going to care about the language, I have a hard time saying to them “This is a great book!” because I certainly don’t want people to think I condone such language: I’m disgusted by it.