Comments on: Appelt v. Caletti

By: windows 7 home premium 64 bit activation key

windows 7 home premium 64 bit activation key — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:03:07 +0000

thank you for your good post.seo services

By: Brooke Shirts

Brooke Shirts — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 04:36:11 +0000

Roger, thank you so much for this reviewer-review. I’ve been lukewarm with the BoB for the past few years because I felt that all of the judges were too nice and not articulate enough about their choices. To tell the truth, they are often dull because of this. Hopefully future judges will rethink their choices!

By: fairrosa

fairrosa — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:16:44 +0000

Oh, I totally understand the pragmatic side of these reviews, since they are published as selection aids, mostly for public and school libraries. I am pretty ignorant out of this area: are there more literary reviews for school teachers and parents on children’s books as gateways to higher literary appreciation — and not just for theoretical or academic explorations? Who publish those and where can parents and elementary/middle school teachers access them?

By: Ms. Yingling

Ms. Yingling — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:28:35 +0000

I find that the summaries on line don’t really tell the whole story, and aren’t really helpful. I don’t really care if a book is “literary” or not, but I do want to know if it is a good story that my students may find interesting. Perhaps middle school students are rubbing off on me, but a plot summary and a couple of evaluative lines are all that I really want in a book review. I try to visit a lot of different blogs to find out what new books are out there, and I don’t need a dissection of all of their qualities.

By: fairrosa

fairrosa — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:17:31 +0000

I think however you do it, it will work, somehow This really makes one look at the ways we examine books, especially books for children. However, perhaps what needs to be done is an overhaul of the “professional” practices of the reviewers/critics. I feel that this judging of the author-as-judges does not solve your original query — how, as a field, we examine children’s books. Or, as a field, how we write reviews. One of my teachers at school was surprised when she started reading “professional” children’s book reviews (trying to find good examples for her students to imitate) that so much of the space is given to just plot summary and only one or two sentences toward the end of each “review” say something evaluative about the book — and often not illuminating enough on the literary qualities of the books. Since book synopses are so easy to find online these days, perhaps the reviewers can spend more words on dissecting the books’ literary merits/flaws?

By: Roger Sutton

Roger Sutton — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:46:15 +0000

Roxanne, Monica warned me there was something off about the math but she couldn’t put her finger on what. While I will be able to judge the first set of brackets with no problems, I can’t advance the winner because that would screw up the next round. So what I’m going to do, once the remaining two brackets of round one are completed, is choose a winner from that round. I’ll do the same with the second, third, and final rounds, then choose a winner-winner from that remaining group of four. I hope this is right!

David, that must have been some SERIOUS work you were avoiding. Thanks!

By: DavidB

DavidB — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 04:03:31 +0000

In a serious bout of procrastination, I decided to actually do a (very quick) tally to answer the question you posed a few days ago: what proportion of the decisions put the losing book first?

My numbers were as follows (for all decisions up to Friday’s):
Losing book(s) first (all of the Big Kahuna Round decisions discussed the winner third): 48
Winning book first: 12
Interwove discussion of the two: 4

Some of my categorizations could be questioned (you could make a case that some of the “loser firsts” could be put into the interwoven category, especially from 2009; when there appeared to be extended discussions, I categorized by which book was discussed at length first. In the case of Appelt’s decision this year, she interwove, but always discussed the loser before the winner for each category), but overall, the trend is clear: the loser gets discussed before the winner way more often.

By: fairrosa

fairrosa — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 02:51:16 +0000

Since I am involved with the year-long process of figuring out the final 16 titles for BoB, I’d like to remind everyone that these books all have received great reviews, won awards, popular with readers, and really positive responses from many readers. So, I think that it is absolutely possible for a judge/reader to see mostly positive aspects of the two books in front of them. If the books do not possess a lot of merits, they wouldn’t have made it to the arena.

By: Sam Bloom

Sam Bloom — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:28:56 +0000

I’m with DaNae, this is super-awesome. And I agree with both of Roger’s decisions so far, including the fact that Appelt has been best so far (at least, that’s what I’m inferring from him from his comments… correct me if I’m wrong, Roger). I think it’s possible to be more critical while also playing nice, and I think it is so true that the judges so often bend over backwards not to ruffle feathers. I love that the two competitions are going on simultaneously, so we can start with BoB, read some of the comments on there, and then immediately come on over to hear Roger’s thoughts!

Oh, and the changing Batman and Robin graphics – hilarious!

By: DaNae

DaNae — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:54:47 +0000

Roxanne, I am enjoying this immensely. It has been an education in critique, and clearly delivered. The persistent snark is appreciated but not distracting. After reading the first round I didn’t even need the check to know Caletti blew it.