I noticed today in my local coffee shop/favorite lunch spot that the Washington Post had just added some fuel to the Newbery fire: Critics Say Newbery-Winning Books Are Too Challenging for Young Readers.
This headline is rather misleading, as this is a fairly even-handed article, talking about how the Newbery denotes a lot of status, not to mention sales increases--yet many people are not aware of what requirements are needed for a book to win the Newbery Medal. As the article cites, many people believe that the award is for books written for children that are between the ages of eight and twelve. But as us librarians know, the Newbery is awarded to the work of children's literature of the highest quality--a book that is appropriate for a child up to and including the age of fourteen.
It's always interesting to see how the outside world views the work we do, especially when it comes to something like the Newbery that has gone beyond libraryland. This article does a fairly good job of looking at this issue from various points of view. Regardless of how you feel about Anita Silvey's original article, I think this new article gives us some more food for thought on this ongoing issue.
Showing posts with label newbery award. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newbery award. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Opinion: That Newbery Discussion Again
I'm perfectly willing to concede when I've gotten the wrong end of the stick. I think my reaction to Anita Silvey's article about the recent Newbery winners reflected my lack of knowledge of the Newbery rules. It's true, the Newbery Award is not about popularity--which wasn't what I interpreted Silvey's article to be stating. And contrary to how Silvey indicated the Newbery is interpreted as, this award is also not about picking a new classic or selecting a book that holds a universality for many children.
Yet . . . isn't that what's happened with the Newbery? Isn't that how us librarians are often interpreting the Newbery? To quote from Liz at A Chair, a Fireplace and a Tea Cozy, who says it so much better than I could, "If there are that many people out there, including professional librarians, who don't "get" what the Newbery is about, whose fault is it?" I know that I, personally, see the Newbery Award going to a book that is considered so superior to any other book published in that year, a book that is a work of art that will last for decades. Yet the librarians in Silvey's article--and note, she spoke to over a hundred librarians, media specialists, teachers, and other professionals--indicate that the recent winners do not seem to meet that test.
However that's not to say that the argument in Silvey's article is completely valid. As Carlie from Libarilly Blonde pointed out to me, discussion on listservs have commented that comparing Criss Cross to The Giver or Kira-Kira to Holes are false comparisions, since those books were published in different years. It'd be more valid to compare the Newbery winner with other books published in the same calendar year. To use a slightly different example to illustrate this, I'm sure in years to come people will be talking about this year's Printz winner, The White Darkness, and comparing it to The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, and asking if perhaps the wrong book won the Printz. That's a fair argument, and one that could have strengthened Silvey's position.
However, the essential point still remains, I think. What's wrong with expressing a lack of enthusiasm for recent winners of the Newbery? It's not a slur upon the committees who have selected the books; as I said in my original post, I can appreciate how hard their task is. Perhaps Silvey's article is making the right argument using the wrong reasons, or perhaps this will be forgotten in a few months. Either way, it's provoked a lot of thought on my part, about how I evaluate books and how I want to express my opinions. And that's a good thing! So thank you to those who sent comments either agreeing or disagreeing with my initial post; I hope you out there continue to listen to my thoughts.
Yet . . . isn't that what's happened with the Newbery? Isn't that how us librarians are often interpreting the Newbery? To quote from Liz at A Chair, a Fireplace and a Tea Cozy, who says it so much better than I could, "If there are that many people out there, including professional librarians, who don't "get" what the Newbery is about, whose fault is it?" I know that I, personally, see the Newbery Award going to a book that is considered so superior to any other book published in that year, a book that is a work of art that will last for decades. Yet the librarians in Silvey's article--and note, she spoke to over a hundred librarians, media specialists, teachers, and other professionals--indicate that the recent winners do not seem to meet that test.
However that's not to say that the argument in Silvey's article is completely valid. As Carlie from Libarilly Blonde pointed out to me, discussion on listservs have commented that comparing Criss Cross to The Giver or Kira-Kira to Holes are false comparisions, since those books were published in different years. It'd be more valid to compare the Newbery winner with other books published in the same calendar year. To use a slightly different example to illustrate this, I'm sure in years to come people will be talking about this year's Printz winner, The White Darkness, and comparing it to The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, and asking if perhaps the wrong book won the Printz. That's a fair argument, and one that could have strengthened Silvey's position.
However, the essential point still remains, I think. What's wrong with expressing a lack of enthusiasm for recent winners of the Newbery? It's not a slur upon the committees who have selected the books; as I said in my original post, I can appreciate how hard their task is. Perhaps Silvey's article is making the right argument using the wrong reasons, or perhaps this will be forgotten in a few months. Either way, it's provoked a lot of thought on my part, about how I evaluate books and how I want to express my opinions. And that's a good thing! So thank you to those who sent comments either agreeing or disagreeing with my initial post; I hope you out there continue to listen to my thoughts.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Opinion: Has the Newbery Lost Its Way?
Having served on a YALSA selection committee, I know how hard it is to select a group of books. Selecting the book that makes the greatest contribution to children's literature must, therefore, be an even more difficult task. It's always easy to play Monday morning quarterback, and I don't want to disparage anyone's hard work.
All that being said, however? Amen to Anita Silvey for asking the question, Has the Newbery Lost Its Way? (Thanks to Bookshelves of Doom for the link.) Of the last couple of Newbery winners that I've read--Good Masters! Sweet Ladies!, The Higher Power of Lucky, Criss Cross--only Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! was memorable and something that could have the broad appeal to all the groups that help create lasting popularity: teachers, librarians, children and parents.
I think all book awards where the major criterion is literary quality walk a fine line in selecting the winner, and in the case of the major awards for youth literature (the Newbery and the Printz), you truly do have to ask if the public might know a bit more about books than us experts. Silvey cites the classic example of how the Newbery has not picked the lasting book: the 1953 winner was not Charlotte's Web, but The Secret of the Andes. Will we look back in fifty years and be able to make the same case? Maybe, maybe not. But I believe Anita Silvey's article should be given to every successive Newbery and Printz committee, as a word from the wise. Because if these committees continue to select books that do not have, in Silvey's words, a kind of universality, the Newbery will start to lose a little of its status. And what a come down that would be.
All that being said, however? Amen to Anita Silvey for asking the question, Has the Newbery Lost Its Way? (Thanks to Bookshelves of Doom for the link.) Of the last couple of Newbery winners that I've read--Good Masters! Sweet Ladies!, The Higher Power of Lucky, Criss Cross--only Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! was memorable and something that could have the broad appeal to all the groups that help create lasting popularity: teachers, librarians, children and parents.
I think all book awards where the major criterion is literary quality walk a fine line in selecting the winner, and in the case of the major awards for youth literature (the Newbery and the Printz), you truly do have to ask if the public might know a bit more about books than us experts. Silvey cites the classic example of how the Newbery has not picked the lasting book: the 1953 winner was not Charlotte's Web, but The Secret of the Andes. Will we look back in fifty years and be able to make the same case? Maybe, maybe not. But I believe Anita Silvey's article should be given to every successive Newbery and Printz committee, as a word from the wise. Because if these committees continue to select books that do not have, in Silvey's words, a kind of universality, the Newbery will start to lose a little of its status. And what a come down that would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
