Sam Juliano

Violet, I stated my case, and won't be redundant. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Apparently plenty of people do not buy your argument. But you are certainly entitled to state it here. You still did not address the matter of the superb quality of the other honor books; you continue to based your entire objection on the disdain for a single book. What about the other five? I realize I have been on this thread far too often, and I will pull back now and let others chime in. Thank you for the engagement.

Posted : Feb 10, 2015 01:45

Roger Sutton

I was on the committee for Hugo Cabret, and there was a lot of "this is not a picture book" reaction then, too. I can only say that the Caldecott committee is always working from the same definition of "picture book" as outlined in the Medal's criteria.

Posted : Feb 10, 2015 01:45

Sam Juliano

Violet, what you say here can apply to each and every committee dating back to the very beginning of the awards. The committee members are human, and as such have disparate tastes, but they have been looking at these books for over a year. If you are an ALA member as you say, what possible reason would you have for wanted to paint the entire process sin a compromising or even negative light? I don't get it. You even suggest in your comment here that there could be a 'personal agenda.' Again that could be true of any committee from any year, or any voting body in general. What is the point you are trying to make? A cynical person will never accept the integrity of any voting process. But when one reserves that complaint for a result that is not in accordance with what one would have preferred to win, well then there can't be any legitimacy to the charge. Personally I trust a committee who have worked hard in mutual scrutiny, and the system that appointed them to that watch.

Posted : Feb 08, 2015 05:27

Sam Juliano

How about this piece, Violet? http://clockworkfoundry.com/2015/02/just-one-reason-there-are-many-why-this-one-summers-caldecott-honor-matters-a-lot/

Posted : Feb 08, 2015 05:27

Sam Juliano

Violet Jane, thanks for the polite response. I am not a librarian myself, nor do I sell books, but I have used picture books in my classrooms for over thirty years, and I also review books (including picture books) as well as film, theater and opera for many years. I hold an M.A. in English literature, have served on my community's library board for 16 years (still serving) and have taught on every grade level from the 1st to the 12th. I just completed a Caldecott Medal Contender series at Wonders in the Dark, which I'd like to think exhaustively covered the many books that were among the year's most notable contenders. I own a massive collection of Caldecott and Newbery books, gathered over decades, and I keep abreast of all new releases for use in class and for possible review. I have exhaustively reviewed each and every one of the medal and honor books, which can be accessed at my site. Your statement that "you were not upset with the number of honor books but the quality in general." Really, did I get that right? What book (s) exactly are you talking about??? Seven (7) books were honored--you had an issue with THIS ONE SUMMER. We'll just have to agree to disagree. The vast majority seem to be in glowing support of this book. But, setting that aside, what possible problems would or could you have with the likes of VIVA FRIDA, THE RIGHT WORD, NANA IN THE CITY, SAM AND DAVE DIG A HOLE, and THE NOISY PAINT BOX, all of which received honors, and of course THE ADVENTURES OF BEEKLE, which won the medal. What problem could you have with even ONE of this lot of masterpieces? Please tell me as I'd like to be enlightened? As a professional reviewer you surely know well that each and every one of these books were recipient to stupendous reviews from Kirkus, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly and The Horn Book. Each and every one repeatedly were cited on Ten Best lists from all sorts of on-line sites and sources, and each and every one were touted by classroom teachers as among the best picture books that were using with their classes over the past twelve months. Accolade after accolade have been rolling in ever since each initially appeared. I have yet to hear a single person anywhere who has made a complaint about VIVA FRIDA, NANA IN THE CITY, THE RIGHT WORD and SAM AND DAVE DIG A HOLE, and there has only been minor issues with THE NOISY PAINTBOX, mostly connected with taste. THE ADVENTURES OF BEEKLE is spectacularly popular, even with the vocal minority who have brought up the absence of THE FARMER AND THE CLOWN on these pages. What absence of quality are you talking about? Are we talking about the right books here? You can certainly take issues with the total as a matter of philosophical principal, but surely you can't be questioning the excellence of the selections? As a person with your avowed credentials, I refuse to believe that you possibly question any of the titles. If I am wrong I dare say you stand all alone. You have an issue with THIS ONE SUMMER. Why then would the other six (6) books have to take the fall? Guilt by association? SIX (6) picture book masterpieces are now questioned because you have a personal issue with the brave and visionary choice of a graphic novel. If you have a complaint, I would hope you'd be more specific. As it is you haven't really made any kind of persuasive argument, I'm sorry to say.

Posted : Feb 08, 2015 05:12

Sam Juliano

Jonathan, I would bet we'll see three or four next year, and then the year after perhaps more. i know there are good selling points for less and for more, and there are advocates for each, but it is nice sometimes (like this year) to get such a responding statement of the year's riches. :)

Posted : Feb 08, 2015 02:04

Sam Juliano

Bradin, I just now saw your wonderful comment/inquiry. Unfortunately I can't respond to it right now as I am heading over to Books of Wonder with my family for a book signing with several author/illustrators. But I will try and state my position as soon as I can, for sure later this afternoon. Thank you.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 08:56

Sam Juliano

Bradin, first off what I meant by "their Caldecott Medal" is indeed as you speculated--THEIR personal choices for the year's best books. I used the Caldecott as a label denoting the best books for each respective critic or reader taking up the gauntlet. As to the graphic novel, I do believe they were technically ALWAYS available, but only over the past decade have their supporters began to be more vocal for their recognition by the committees, including the Caldecott. it makes sense. The art in graphic novels is absolutely as accomplished, as painstaking and as sublime as that of many of the most striking picture books. The art in THIS ONE SUMMER is simply astonishing. The cartoonish panels, full page spreads, ink and pencil illustrations, make for an aesthetically arresting book even without the context that seems to have temporarily dominated the discussions. But this is an extraordinarily beautifully illustrated book that fully warrants the Caldecott Honor it received. You claim you never heard anyone say that graphic novel are picture books. Well, I'm sure that is because up until now they haven't been honored as such. There should not be any reason under the sun why graphic novels should be exempt from this award. They quality in every sense, and if they don't in "spirit" for some it has far more to do with precedence than it does for any quite of artistic inadequacy. This year's committee broke the ice, and brought together what was too long seen as separate literary entities. Future committees will no longer have to second guess their sentiments. Caldecott goes up to age 14. Caldecott is about "illustrations." THIS ONE SUMMER is right there on both specifications.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 08:56

Sam Juliano

Bradin, I'm sure this brilliant piece from Kate Milford will help you immensely: http://clockworkfoundry.com/2015/02/just-one-reason-there-are-many-why-this-one-summers-caldecott-honor-matters-a-lot/

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 08:56

Bradin

Sam, thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope you don't mind if I push back a little bit, although I'll mainly push back against the argument found in the link you shared. Let me first make clear I have no issue with the age stuff. I have no issue with the quality of the illustrations in This One Summer either; they're quite well done. My issue is mainly with the fast and loose definition of "picture book" that you and others are employing when--and only when, as far I can see--it comes to the Caldecott. I've encountered Kate's argument before, in a blog post by Jonathan a year or so ago. I think it's an argument that demands we define a picture book independent of our experience, and only by their interpretation of the criteria. On the face of it, it seems compelling, but ultimately I find it unconvincing. I want to share two hypotheticals to help me explain why: 1. Let's say an artist paints a series of beautiful and aesthetically arresting illustrations on canvases and hangs them up next to each other in a gallery and she tells the world, "Here is my picture book for children." (I guess we also have to assume that someone on the committee brings this "picture book" to the deliberation table.) If we're going strictly by the criteria, I don't see any reason why her art show shouldn't be considered. It's no use saying that canvases placed on the wall do not make a book, because the criteria doesn't give us a definition of what a book is. It merely assumes we know what a book is beforehand. 2. Let's say another artist hand letters a book for children, but doesn't include a single "traditional" illustration. He publishes it and says, "Here is my picture book for children." Who's to say it isn't? Aren't letters and words pictures, in a sense? I mean they're just tiny squiggly lines in various shapes placed next to each other and children look at them. The criteria isn't going to tell us whether or not they count as illustrations, because they don't offer a definition. We're just supposed to know what illustrations are. Would you balk at these "picture books" if someone brought them to the committee? I sure would, because we have a conception of what "pictures" and "books" are before even reading the criteria, and these examples obviously don't comply. But if someone tells us, you can't use those ideas because they're not defined that way in the criteria, then what are we to do? Just allow any old thing that someone says is a "picture" or a "book"? That's what I see Jonathan and Kate doing here. They're telling us: "You're not allowed to use your idea of what a picture book is, because it's not defined that way in the criteria." They're willing to allow us our ideas of "pictures" and "books" (maybe I'm wrong in that assumption), but, for some reason, once these words are combined, it's not allowed, even though that combination of words has been used for a very long time to describe a particular artform. I disagree with you that the reason I haven't heard anyone call graphic novels picture books is because they were never honored before by the committee. The picture book artform is larger than its most distinguished award, and people (even those who are happy This One Summer won) will no doubt continue to maintain the distinction between picture books and graphic novels in other areas of life, and for many reasons, not least of which because it's useful. That's it for now, even though there's a lot more to say on the subject. I realize that my arguments don't mean much in the scheme of things (if they even make sense, lol), and I agree with you that we'll likely see more graphic novels win in the future. Of course, I wish that weren't the case, but I'm content knowing that arguments over artforms and other adult bullsh*t do not really matter much to children, and that time will ultimately give us the best books to be read and read again, with or without that gold/silver sticker on the cover. Thanks again, Sam, for engaging me in this discussion.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 08:56

Sam Juliano

Bradin, excellent response here. Thank YOU so much for the engagement.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 08:56

Roger Sutton

Correction: there were four honor books the year I served (Hugo Cabret).

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 07:27

Roger Sutton

Girl please. I haven't veiled anything since one misbegotten Halloween some decades ago. Award honor books are a pet topic of mine and have been so for years. The unprecedented number of ones this year simply provided me with another opportunity to beat my drum/dead horse; take your pick.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 05:40

Frank Gallo

OK, I understand. Cheers.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 05:40

Sam Juliano

With all due respect Violet Jane, the committee DID follow the rules to a letter. What mathematics are you talking about? The committee are allowed to award as many honor books as they see fit. That is in the ALA rule book. Five (5) Honor books have been awarded MANY times over the years. If they thought 10 or 11 were appropriate they would have done so. Because YOU think LESS honor books makes a better case in sizing up the year's merits, this should tarnish the actual result? It doesn't work that way. I think it was the most glorious result ever, and we should be celebrating the six honors, instead of trying to find a reason to support an absurd less is more philosophy. And then the matter of graphic novels. This type of book has been eligible for a number of years and in fact many critics and commentators have included several graphic novel titles for their Caldecott Medal annually. The "Book Industry Study Group" has NOTHING to do with what books are favored by the ALA, or discussed in their committee rooms. That seems to be a needless complication of what is clearly stated in the rule books. Why pray tell would you need a link that "links the two?" Point is the book fell in the older end of the eligibility parameter, and like other graphic novels with extraordinary illustrations was fair game in these deliberations. The last comment about what your "heard" coming out of the committee room is exactly what you originally posed - A RUMOR, and as such is a kind of slur against the committee. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe this committee happened to like seven other books MORE than THE FARMER AND THE CLOWN? last year, plenty of people liked MR. TIGER GOES WILD, myself included. But that book didn't win. Should we then in typical Monday morning quarterback fashion, attempt to comprise a year of hard and time-consuming work and deliberation by a group of some of the most qualified librarians and book experts in the nation? I can only marvel at the absurdity that any outsider would come to these conclusions, and thus degrade the reputation of this esteemed group of tireless and passionate professionals. BTW, I liked THE FARMER AND THE CLOWN too. But it was NOT in my top ten books of the year. I personally read and examined over 250 eligible books during the course of the year. Nothing to do with creepy clowns at all, just having to do with the fact that I liked ten other books more. hence if I were on this year's committee, I would NOT have voted for that particular book, though I like it quite a bit, as I do all of Frazee's work. I am also an outsider, with no affiliation to the ALA or the voting committees. I am a veteran educator. Let's hope the ALA stands their ground and resists calls for change, change that would be detrimental to the industry in general, and frankly an artistic affront to our cherished authors and illustrators.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 02:53

Sam Juliano

"This One Summer is a full-length graphic novel aimed at an audience that is intended for more mature readers." Oh and BTW Violet, THIS ONE SUMMER is aimed at 14 year-olds, which is the upper end year of the Caldecott eligibility parameter. My 12 year old son and 14 daughter both have read it with my blessing and both adored it, as did my 18 year-old, 17 year-old and 15 year-old.

Posted : Feb 07, 2015 02:53

Roger Sutton

I know!!!

Posted : Feb 06, 2015 05:27

Sam Juliano

But not using any or close to no exclamation points makes for a very boring discussion, methinks. :)

Posted : Feb 06, 2015 05:27