leda

I was fortunate enough to be on the Caldecott committee in a different century. But every year since then, I make my plea, and not just because I'm a writer: if the picture book is a dance between art and text (I'm going to ignore wordless books for the moment, even though they keep winning), why is the most prestigious award for the picture book not for the whole book? Whole book, please. Even author/illustrators frequently say they begin with the words. Can of worms? Great questions here, and I will read all the posts right now.

Posted : Sep 30, 2014 05:10

Elisa Gall

If I am solely defining comics as sequential art, then yes-lots of (if not most) picture books would be comics. However, there are elements and norms of comic art (panels, word balloons, captions, etc.) that move pieces into terrain that the general community will clearly accept as comics (at least with longer books). Because these norms don't appear with every PB (long or short), I don't think all PBs are comics. Still, I see all comics as a type of PB. (And yes, I am using the Caldecott criteria here as our definition of what a PB is. That is why I haven't yet mentioned author intent or publisher marketing. Neither of these are part of the criteria but impact how things get defined nowadays.) If we took a multi-paneled page of MR. WUFFLES! and compared it to a multi-paneled page of TIPPY AND THE NIGHT PARADE (sold as a comic), those 2 pages would have more in common than MR. WUFFLES! and BAD BYE, GOOD BYE. I understand that these comparisons get pretty subjective (this is a comment post after all) :), but my larger point is that if we define a picture book as "one that essentially provides the child with a visual experience," then we can't exclude certain types of essentially visual experiences (including comics).

Posted : Sep 30, 2014 11:21

Robin Smith

Bradin, I am ABSOLUTELY no expert on comics, except that I am old enough to have read and collected comics of the Betty and Veronica/Baby Huey/Richie Rich type as a child in the 60s. Elisa might be better equipped to handle this query. I think that picture books without panels, speech bubbles and other graphic elements are not comics. I also see a lot of books that blur the lines between picture books and comics. I think the criteria allow for a comic to win, just like the criteria allowed Hugo Cabret to win. Why do you hope a comic will never win? Are you also opposed to a book with graphic elements winning? (Like MR WUFFLES, INTERRUPTING CHICKEN, IN THE NIGHT KITCHEN) This is a perennial and interesting argument that I get lost in every year. How would you define the difference between a comic vs. a picture book? This might be too big a question for this forum, but I really do struggle with this. Thanks for stopping by. I love seeing a new name.

Posted : Sep 30, 2014 03:56

Elisa Gall

"Is there enough room in the Caldecott criteria to accommodate graphic novels, for instance?" Yes, yes, YES! Still, I recognize that it might be difficult for one person to convince the rest of her committee about that. Don’t all books written in the comics format fall under the picture book umbrella? Not all PBs are comics, but all comics are PBs in that they provide the reader (child through adult) with an experience in which illustrations play a vital role. The term “graphic novel” makes me a little bit uneasy, because it is thrown out there with books that are not novels at all, like MARCH (nonfiction) or FAIRY TALE COMICS (short story compilation). I prefer the terms comics or graphics—as these feel more inclusive. I find it interesting that when PBs that are essentially comics (IN THE NIGHT KITCHEN, MR. WUFFLES!,etc.) receive recognition, no one questions them. As soon as a longer comic (such as EL DEAFO) comes up in conversation, there is hesitancy. Might this reluctance to define comics as a type of picture book be more of an issue of length (or age of audience) than author’s style? Robin, I appreciate how you pointed out how a picture book like VULTURE VIEW can win multiple awards. Given that we’ve already seen comics honored for the Geisel (STINKY), CSK (MARCH), and Sibert (TO DANCE), I don’t think it’ll be too long before we see a truly distinguished, longer-length comic get a Caldecott nod.

Posted : Sep 30, 2014 01:11

Robin Smith

I am sorry. That was a bit of a long-winded post. Sorry.

Posted : Sep 29, 2014 06:30

Robin Smith

As a former member of a number of committees, including Coretta Scott King, Geisel, BGHB and Caldecott, I often sit in wonder at the end of the year lists where books are honored. Each committee has such a different charge--some with very loose criteria and some with specific ones. But, in the end, everyone is looking for the "most distinguished" in some way or another so there should be tons of crossover. It's interesting to read the public response when one book runs away (BOMB, for instance) with everything, I think we (okay, I ) feel like..."share the wealth." I have the same feeling at the Oscars when the same film wins in every category, knowing full well that it makes sense. The criteria for what makes an early chapter book distinguished is clearly very different than from what makes an informational book distinguished, right? Maybe. When I was on Geisel, we honored VULTURE VIEW and I would not have been surprised to hear it's name called for Sibert. We also honored FIRST THE EGG and it got called for Caldecott that year. But I am much more worried about Martha's other question: But what about the cases where the style of illustrations might be outside the mainstream culture, and the majority of the committee may have little or no knowledge of that culture? What happens then? And is it the criterion that needs to be addressed, or the makeup of the committees?" That't why it's important to have people from many backgrounds on the committee. It's also why Caldecott committees are asked to go to museums, read art books, learn to find out why certain styles are so appreciated, even if you don't find them captivating yet. Art comes in so many forms and the committee members HAVE to move beyond their personal likes and dislikes. I like to think of the surprises: the first Knuffle Bunny honor, Peggy Rathmann, Chris Raschka. Someone had to stand up on the table and open up the eyes of the committee, I bet. But there has to BE that person or those people willing to learn the style, figure out why that art works with this story and do the legwork to teach the others. I am looking at some of the books that the committee might discuss that has a very different aesthetic than we have seen before, especially VIVA FRIDA, SEPARATE IS NEVER EQUAL. A LETTER FOR LEO, SUGAR HILL: HARLEM'S HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD and EL DEAFO. (leaving the graphic novel discussion alone for just a second, Joseph Miller.) Personally, I am happy with the criteria. On my committee, I thought the chair and members used them well and we honored three very different books. I did not find them constricting. But still. Did we miss something? Was there some style of illustration that we just didn't appreciate? Gulp.

Posted : Sep 29, 2014 06:30

Lolly Robinson

Having served on both the Caldecott (loooong criteria) and the Boston Globe-Horn Book Awards (minimal criteria), I will say that I prefer less direction. However, given the large size of the Caldecott committee (BGHB has only 3), I do understand the need for more guidance. But depending on your chair — who, the year I severed, decoded the criteria for us and helped us mentally update them to some extent — I can see how the Caldecott guidelines could get in the way these days. I'm sure the committee that chose Hugo Cabret had some big discussions about this. I had forgotten the part about "appropriateness of style." To me, this is just one of those things anyone should be thinking about when they evaluate picture books. Sometimes it's very important (and easy to overlook), and sometimes — as Martha says — needing to follow that rule could force a committee to pass over a great book. I think there will always be a problem with the Caldecott Committee members' varied experience when evaluating picture books. I'm guessing there is a long and difficult method to change award guidelines. Presumably it needs a very large percentage of whoever votes on this kind of thing. My personal preference would be for the award guidelines to be stripped way down, but to have a second document (that can be updated easily) with common sense guidelines for evaluating picture books -- or better yet, all illustrated books, genre by genre.

Posted : Sep 29, 2014 05:16

Joseph Miller

Martha, You mentioned graphic novels being included in the Caldecott. I'd rather they have their own award(s) b/c they are such a distinct form. As for the Caldecott criteria, they seem to be holding up very well with age, although I do think it makes sense to occasionally look at them to see if anything needs to be amended. Best Wishes, Joseph

Posted : Sep 29, 2014 04:37