Intended by whom?

In the comments to a recent Heavy Medal post, there is a discussion about the eligibility and/or chances of The Hate U Give for Newbery discussion. (In case you're new here, The Hate U Give is receiving the 2017 Boston Globe-Horn Book Award for Fiction tomorrow night.) It was a Mr. H. who brought up the Newbery criteria, quoting the part about how any awarded or honored book "shall be a book for which children are an intended potential audience." Wait, what? "Intended?" When did that word slip in there? I didn't remember that being in the criteria when I served back in 1999 (Holes) but was I misremembering?

Nope. I emailed the master of all things Newbery K.T. Horning and she said that "intended" did not occur in that clause back in the 1982 committee manual  (that she had happened to have at hand; God, I love scholars); and back on Heavy Medal, Monica Edinger confirmed that it did not appear in the 2008 manual, either.

I'd love to know when and why it went. "Intended" by whom? The author? We can all think of examples, apocryphal and otherwise, of writers claiming not to know they had written a children's book until an agent or editor pointed it out. Intended by the publisher? Again, we can all think of examples where a publisher's named age-range for a book does not correspond with our own reckoning. I'm very curious to know how this intent is determined.

My fellow oldsters will remember my objection to the Printz Award going to American Born Chinese, not because of any deficiency in the book but because the award's rules insisted that any winner be published as a book for young adults, and that book was published without any such specification--a policy that at the time was true for all books from the First Second publishing imprint. But the Newbery committee, until 2008, anyway, was always charged with figuring out for themselves just what a children's book was--my favorite part of the discussion! The day we stop asking that question is the day we stop doing our jobs, in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, the biggest effect of this insertion is to limit the pool of eligible contenders to books from publishers who assign reading ranges to their books. This is common but not universal in American trade publishing, and potentially strikes for discussion books by publishers who don't follow the rules.. And it thus takes part of the selection decision out of the hands of the committee and into those of the marketing departments. I don't know if there's another Incident at Hawk's Hill or The Circuit out there, but both were published as adult books and received their definition (and award citations) as books for youth from the library community. I like to think we would want to keep ourselves open to those kind of surprises.
Roger Sutton
Roger Sutton
Roger Sutton has been the editor in chief of The Horn Book, Inc, since 1996. He was previously editor of The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and a children's and young adult librarian. He received his M.A. in library science from the University of Chicago in 1982 and a B.A. from Pitzer College in 1978. Follow him on Twitter: @RogerReads.
Comment Policy:
  • Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  • Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  • Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
  • Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media.
  • If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.


Roxanne Feldman

I agree with KT that Newbery Committee members would have better sense than going purely with publisher assigned age range or even Library of Congress or other CIP subject headings or suggested interest age/reading levels. After all, we are professionals who mostly work with and know many child readers from all across the country and can make that decision quite intelligently.

Posted : Oct 06, 2017 12:50


Roger Sutton

I agree, KT. But to my mind, this insertion is contrary to that independence.

Posted : Oct 05, 2017 10:26


KT Horning

Roger, the Newbery Committee knows enough not to be swayed by publisher recommended age levels. They use their own readings of the book itself and apply the official terms and definitions to arrive at their decisions.

Posted : Oct 05, 2017 09:52


Kate B.

That language was quoted in a 2010 Heavy Medal post: http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2010/09/17/conspiracy-of-kings/ It looks like it went in with the October 2009 revisions, though the version Nina linked to in that post has been taken offline. It's certainly in subsequent updates of the 2009 manual (2012 is the earliest I can easily find online).

Posted : Oct 05, 2017 06:55


Roger Sutton

I worry that the new wording, probably unintentionally, could restrict eligibility to the usual suspects. THE HATE U GIVE is said by the publisher to be for ages 14 and up so it sneaks in. But had it said 15? I'm guessing this book is all over the middle schools of the country and hope that the Newbery committee gives it a good look.

Posted : Oct 05, 2017 06:54


View More Comments

RELATED 

Community matters. Stay up to date on breaking news, trends, reviews, and more.

Get access to reviews of books, ebooks, and more