>SLJ’s always entertaining Heavy Medal blog is back for the season and today Fuse #8 speculates on Newbery and Caldecott possibilities. I’m hopeless at this game and anyway remember the way Betsy Hearne was (verbally) spanked for having the temerity to suggest in a BCCB editorial that the Newbery Committee ought to give serious consideration to Brock Cole’s Celine. In those pre-blog days, nobody was supposed to tell the award committees what to do, especially in print.
About Roger Sutton
>Oooh, I remember that. And you responded by saying that the next year's committee should give serious consideration to . . . The Cuckoo's Child, do I have that title right? Suzanne Freeman, I think. Just daring people to spank you.
How do you feel about the all the discussion? I was pleased with the picks last year, but I remember that it was a bit of an anti-climax by the time the "real" Newbery was announced.
ferwas
>And I totally got into trouble for that, ferwas. When I called Susan Hirschman to tell her that Lynne Rae Perkins had won a BGHB Honor for Home Lovely, Susan lit into me because Cuckoo's Child had won nothing. (I pick the BGHB judges, but not the winners.)
While I agree that all the chatter can take some of the air out of the announcements, I think it's great for the awards–any award, really. It means the award matters. My July 2010 editorial was on this topic.
>On the one hand, the insight into the Newbery Committee has kind of taken the shine off it for me — shucks, they are mere mortals, after all.
On the other hand, so many more books get the benefit of being "Newbery Contenders" which is great. Every year there are things that I *wish* had won something, that don't. This way, they get at least a little bit of the attention.
And for what it's worth. I was with you on the Freeman book. But I don't think your comments sunk its chances. That was a book with very high expectations of its audience.
ferwas
>Ugh. NO. I hate the overtalking and handicapping and analyzing. I know some people love it, and consider it a hobby, and we've all talked about it on and off for years, but it trivializes things for me, personally.
>On the one hand, I have fun with the speculation; enjoy using the talk to discover books I haven't read yet; and also like that it forces people outside the committees to really think about the charge beyond "but I like this book."
On the other hand, it puts too much a focus on N/C eligible books, meaning that those by English/Australian/other non Americans fall by the way and don't get the buzz/ talk/ support.
>I'd agree. On the other hand, those non-eligible books get a fair amount of discussion when people howl with cries of pain upon discovering that their favorite book of the year cannot win. I'm certainly more curious to read the book a person is weeping openly over as opposed to another that is merely considered "eligible".
>"The Cuckoo's Child" certainly fits MVP's definition of "uber-Newbery, as outlined in one of the most thoughtful critical works to date about the award is and what it should be. It's also an example of a book (and dare I say, author?) that fades into obscurity without some kind of recognition for its literary quality.
And, honest to Pete, I am not kidding, my word verification is "Shabanu."
>KT is talking about Martha Parravano's "Alive and Vigorous": Questioning the Newbery.