Sam Juliano

Did I call you "Elizabeth", Geraldine? Ugh. I need to screw my head on tight today! Sorry about that!

Posted : Feb 06, 2014 06:29

Geraldine Ryan-Lush

Incidentally, I hold a B.A. (Education) with a major in English Language/Literature. Minor in children's literature. My books are: Jeremy Jeckles Hates Freckles, Hairs On Bears; Poils Poils Et Repoils; Malcolm The Klutz: Malcolm And The Hamster Lady; No Go Potty; Hannigan's Hand; Once When I Wasn't Looking (Poetry); The Colour Of Letters (Novel) I live in Newfoundland, Canada, to my utter reluctance, and by dint only of necessity, since the U.S, is where it's at for authors!

Posted : Feb 06, 2014 02:01

Geraldine Ryan-Lush

Whew! I browsed through some of this thread. What struck me was the sometimes shockingly immature behaviour of the commentators/contributors who are purported to be "experts" in the field of that most impressionable of humans, the children under our care. I have been a classroom teacher, critic , columnist and author/poet for twenty-five years. Children cannot grow into readers who appreciate literature and thus embrace the life that it is bred from, if, first of all, they are unable to read! The most famous Newbery award winners in history are books based on real life, and kids love to see themselves in books. Once are "kickstarted" by this element of identity, they can't be stopped. They fall in love with the process. They are hooked. The fantastical and imaginative fail to interest, if the child is blind to the printed word. As for appreciating and being a creditable critic of art in children's books, I agree with Sam's observation that one doesn't have to draw or paint to know the appeal of art, and be capable of constructive criticism. I can hardly draw a straight line, and am certainly no artist, but I can identify the artistic, in a photo on Facebook, or a noted work in an art gallery. Simply put, I "have the eye." And that's all it takes. A good eye. I reviewed hundreds of books for newspapers and literary journals, and sat on committees judging children's books for selection in libraries. I trusted "my eye for the artistic" and it never let me down. You people are getting mired and bogged down in over-analysis. Another of Sam's terms struck a chord: elitist. I remember using that very word in debates with bureaucracies in the children's literature field years ago. Please don't let the honourable and prestigious Horn Book, School Library Journal, Caldecott, Newbery degenerate into over-analysis and the petty squabblings of a schoolyard mentality. And yes, more honorees, more honorable mentions. there are just way too many really GOOD books out there!

Posted : Feb 06, 2014 01:52

Sam Juliano

I am not sure whether this comment should have been placed here or at the new post of Judy's reflections, but I will do it in both places at the risk of being overbearing. But I know I have crossed that line already, and I do apologize for that. This video from my 17 year old daughter Melanie has me discussing the history of the awards, personal favorites and the implications and urgings centering around this year's Caldecott announcements by the ALA. At the very least I'm sure anyone who does check it out will at least be modestly amused. http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/the-caldecott-notion-sam-speaks-on-last-weeks-picture-books-awards-announced-by-the-ala/

Posted : Feb 05, 2014 11:01

Enrique S.

Hi. I was alerted to this discussion yesterday by one of my colleagues, and I thought I add my two cents for whatever the worth. I have worked in the Rockland County, New York library system for a long time and would like to think I have some knowledge and appreciation for children's lit. I must say that unlike Sam Juliano and the ALA members who posted I am not much for awards. The Newbery and Caldecott awards have monetary value, but beyond that the winners for the average reader of books aren't remembered within a few years after they are awarded. Besides, I'd say I agree with the choices maybe half the time. They are like all the other awards, no better, no worse. They have been long maligned by the all-white mind-set and far too many Latino and African-American books have been "relegated" to the lesser awards from the same organization. This diminishes their relevance and overall appeal. I'd like to address a statement made by the illustrator Roberta Rivera in one of the above comments. Basically she takes Mr. Juliano to task for evaluating children's books and the art in those books. She says his eyes are untrained and demotes him as a "book enthusiastic." She feels she is in some lofty position to judge art because she illustrated a few books. I have yet to see these books in the libraries I have worked in, but that's neither here nor there. The point I am making is this: Is Ms. Rivera aware that the vast majority of the Caldecott committee members who chose this year's winners have never illustrated a single children's book? If you go back a number of years you will find the same statistics. Caldecott (and Newbery) committee members are by and large librarians with some of these as former teachers. Most of them have no experience whatsoever in illustration. So based on these facts I would conclude then that by inference Ms. Rivera is saying that the 15 member panel that just rendered their decision (the same panel she praised vociferously) were unqualified to do so. I found this lengthy discussion most entertaining. Definitely a delightful way to spend a Sunday aftertoon before the Super Bowl. I admire Mr. Juliano's passion, breath of knowledge and sense of humor. The latter quality I especially appreciated in this uptight environment. My own favorite book this year was "Nino Wrestles the World." I am not surprised that it failed to win one of the Caldecott citations. Have a nice day and enjoy the game.

Posted : Feb 02, 2014 08:14

Rose Dawson

Sam Juliano, are you secretly Peter Brown??

Posted : Jan 31, 2014 05:11

Martha V. Parravano

Check out Calling Caldecott for this amazing response from 2014 Caldecott committee member Judy Freeman: https://www.hbook.com/2014/01/blogs/calling-caldecott/caldecott-winners-announced/#comment-67528

Posted : Jan 31, 2014 01:17

Mike Jung

It's interesting to see comments asserting that the committees made selections that were definitively wrong. We are talking about art, after all, and art is infinitely subjective. To assert that any of the committees in question could make choices that are inarguably wrong is to assert that every one of us experiences these books with the exact same intellectual proclivities, emotional capacities, life experiences, and momentary states of mind. But we don't. We can't.

Posted : Jan 31, 2014 02:49

Elizabeth Law

The prestige would NOT be enhanced by a wider range/greater number of honor books, the fact that the number differs from year to year implies that each year only the very worthy make it--which is what makes the award prestigious. And there's no guarantee that Mr Tiger would have made it if there were one more slot this year. The Oscars have more Best Picture nominees now and it's much less interesting--the nominated films benefit commercially but it certainly doesn't burnish the reputation of the Oscars to have more finalists.

Posted : Jan 31, 2014 02:36

leda

KT: the last thing I would ever want you to do is bang your head against the wall. Don't even think about it. I was out all day so I need to catch up on this discussion tomorrow.

Posted : Jan 31, 2014 02:10

Elizabeth Law

First, I'm happy to find so many P.S. Be Eleven fans on this thread! It comforts me to know so many people know how good it is--we're a small sampling, so I hope the book has the wide, devoted fan base it deserves. And as to Sam's point about "aggressing delving (I think you mean doling?) out more honors," I think that would be terrible and take away from the award's prestige, impact and excitement, which it still has in spite of all its flaws. And we'd still be unhappy about what got left out, just like we are with the longer ALA Notable list every year.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 11:58

Sam Juliano

sdl---- My own original contention was that is WAS shocking this year because I had believed it was one of the greatest years ever for picture books. From what I researched your observations are completely correct, as from 1990 onwards the average of Honor books is 3.2. I had stated last week that they did give 6 one year but I was wrong. Since 1990 they have only given 5 out on two occasions, the last of course being last year. I am hoping that the ALA at some point might embrace the idea of aggressively delving out more Honors - in the spirit of what AMPAS did by adding more Best Picture nods- but there is a lot to be said too for only giving the awards to the ones they perceive as being truly excellent. Both ways have their positive aspects of course.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 11:23

sdl

Being a librarian, I must pedantically point out that most years the number of Caldecott Honors has been 3 or 4. It is rare for it to be 1, 2 or 5, and has never (I think) been as high as 6. So it's really not at all shocking that the Committee only picked 3 Honors.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 11:09

Jennifer Schultz

"did not include both medalists and all Caldecott honors." (!)

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 09:38

Jennifer Schultz

Sam, I will agree that I was surprised that there were only 3 Honor titles. I like it when there are 4-5 titles, even though I usually run the risk that I will not have a title in our collection (when it was announced that the Newbery committee chose four titles, I had a feeling that I would be missing one, and sure enough I was--Paperboy. Luckily, we were able to order it--and other youth media award titles that I had not ordered, which thankfully included both medalists and all Caldecot honors)!

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 09:32

Roberta Rivera

Sam, that's why you're not on the Caldecott Committee as you stated "it's very difficult to choose an absolute #1." But they did their job, regardless of what we think they should have picked. They did it. Hats off to them. Regardless, of your many posts arguing the committees mistakes, your passion for books, especially Mr. Tiger Goes Wild and you're educational background as a teacher, you fall short to understand what goes into a picture book. Behind the scenes in putting together a picture is monumental. The nuances in each illustration passes the untrained eyes of most non-art people, like yourself, and the committee must try to understand it and see if that marriage of words and pictures together. Even for wordless picture books, the story must be married perfectly with the illustrations. As I stated Brian Floca's book, Locomotive, inches by the rest. Not by a land slide, but in inches. When you see this artwork exhibited it's amazing. As Jennifer stated above, the Newberry and the Caldcotts are game changers, in life and in careers. The committee understands this and it's a painstaking process. Sam, you have opinion. Good. You have passion. Great. You love art. Fabulous. You love books. Even better. But when it comes to illustrating picture book you and every Joe Smoe on this planet has an opinion about what is good art. Does that makes you qualified? An expert? No. You're a book enthusiast. Well, I'm more qualified than you, but I'm not on the committee and sometimes I think they get it wrong. However, I respect the process.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 06:51

Jennifer Schultz

Don Tate's blog post was hard to read. Yes, if you're getting multiple reviews and people are telling you that your book is definitely a contender, I can understand getting caught up in it. That's natural. The Newbery and Caldecott are such life and career changers.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 05:19

Roberta Rivera

As an illustrator, my list of favorites weren't picked for a Caldecott. Locomotive wasn't my first choice on my list, maybe 3rd or 4th. Journey was my first choice, because I love fantastical art. Art is subjective and we have to keep that in mind. However, I understand why Locomotive was chosen. It hits a very deep chord with adults, readers, children and maybe with the Caldecott committee. The book embodies the heart of the American Spirit, our sense of adventure and innovation. A big locomotive chugging across the Old West and Brian Floca's delivers it. The different perspectives and spatial backgrounds move your eye across the pages, while you travel with the family and the rest of the passengers. This is history, not text book history, this is an adventure with a capital "A", and it's fun. Granted Mr. Tiger Goes Wild, is illustrated beautifully. I love the story. I saw one of the illustration displayed at the Original Art Show, hosted by the Society of Illustrator (NYC) and it's charmingly beautiful, hands down. But when you look at books and the design and layout, Brian Floca inches pass the other books. The Train has made it's destination.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 04:45

Roger Sutton

I don't think NOT getting an award is being burned, more like GETTING one is the cherry on top. Maybe I'm more of a Boy Scout than I thought.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 04:06

Jennifer Schultz

I have been disappointed--quite disappointed--that several thoughtful, fantastic, and even multiple-starred reviewed books have been shut out. But--that's the nature of awards being determined by a select group of people. Happens with the Oscars. Nobel Prize. Grammys. And so on. It happens. If Peter Brown is shocked and/or devastated--I would hope that he isn't--then he joins a large group of authors, illustrators, actors, musicians, etc who have been denied awards. It's the consequence of putting your art out there for the public. Sometimes, you get burned. Life isn't fair. I'm currently going through the Newbery canon. Medals and Honors (some Honors I am unable to read unless I do interlibrary loan--these are the very early Honors). Some of our greatest literature never received a Newbery. And some of those that did win the Newbery have not stood the test of time. (If I never read another story about a shepherd boy maturing into adolescence, I will die a happy woman.)

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 03:28

Roger Sutton

And now for a commercial interruption: Brian Floca, Peter Brown, and Yuyi Morales are among the contributors to the March/April issue of the Horn Book Magazine, a special one devoted to illustration. Subscribe now!

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 03:25

Jennifer Laughran

I strongly disagree that MR TIGER should have been in the winners circle. I think the pictures are ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL, but also that the story has been told before and the end falls apart. Sorry. I mean, look, it's a crowd-pleaser. I've given it as a gift. I have an image from it from the Little Brown calendar taped to my fridge, and I also bought a piece of the original art. I REALLY LIKE IT. But I was not surprised or put out by its non-inclusion, and it will not suffer for lack of a medal. I would have loved to see NINO on the list. I also love LOCOMOTIVE but I kinda wish BLUFFTON had gotten the Caldecott nod. I was disappointed not to see PS BE ELEVEN as Newbery (I mean CSK is great and all, but. Though I know they seem to balk sometimes about sequels.) I was really surprised that ON A BEAM OF LIGHT seemed shut out, but then maybe Vladimir R is not a US citizen/resident and I think that might be a requirement even for the Sibert?

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 03:04

Genevieve Gallagher

As a former Caldecott Committee member, I can honestly say that it is not a decision that is taken lightly and many personal favorites fall by the wayside as compromises are made for the good of reaching an agreement. In the mock Caldecott day I participated in this year (in VT w/Leda co-leading the day) my group spent a great deal of time on Mr Tiger. One issue that came up as a flaw was the gutter use in the two spreads that mimic each other: one where he's climbing the building & one where he's climbing the tree. Although a brilliant juxtaposition, design issues like that may detract from the impact of an illustration. I have no idea, but I do think that the committee's job is very difficult. I have a hard time getting my family of four to agree on a restaurant- fourteen very solid opinions are harder to mesh.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 02:42

Nancy Castaldo

Moving away from the Caldecott….I am there with E. Law -- I was disappointed that P.S. Be Eleven didn't receive a Newbery honor. And where was the True Blue Scouts of Sugar Man Swamp - a National Book Award finalist? Oh, well, on to the Academy Awards!

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 12:54

Leda

And another thing: some years ago there was a heated and extremely challenging discussion about the identity-based awards in the Horn Book. Pura Belpre, CSK, etc. I'd love to see that discussion revived. K.T. mentions her favorite book of the year, Nino Wrestles the World; Elizabeth mentions P.S. Be Eleven. Thoughts?

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 12:53

Leda

If there were two simultaneous Caldecott committees, it's highly unlikely they'd arrive at the same list. There is no such thing as a best book. There are best books that some people love and other people don't. The challenge of the Caldecott Committee members is to present books as articulately as possible to other committee members and, indeed, to attempt to sway other members to agree with them (complicated wording there, I know). So instead of this sort of discussion, in which things are getting personal, the focus is on the art in the books. Learning how to talk about art in picture books can be a lifelong task. Some committee members have a steep learning curve. But the discussion, with a good chair, is focused on just that. It's not sufficient, in that locked room, to say something is best or wonderful or beautiful. It comes down to examining, page by page, what the artist has achieved. And you can't please all of the people all of the time. But you can be respectful and stay focused on the task at hand.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 12:51

Roger Sutton

Sam, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that you are speaking truth to power, and that your perceived offense is daring to disagree with the all-holy ALA. Nothing could be further from the truth, as ten minutes spent scanning this blog and others would demonstrate. The problem is that you are acting as if repeating your assertions over and over and louder and louder and at greater and greater length will convince readers that you have a point. (And they are assertions, not arguments, which one can easily demonstrate by replacing the words "Mr. Tiger Goes Wild" with "Nino Wrestles the World" in your first post above and seeing that it does not make a difference.) You are my guest and you are being annoying. Cut it out or I will ban you from posting on this site--not because of your enthusiasm for Mr. Tiger, but because you are being a grandiose blowhard in love with the sound of his own voice. Stop it now.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 12:38

Joanne Rubenstein

I think Elizabeth Law's point about the award not going to the book that is most popular with kids is the key one. Those of us who read to kids for a living (33 classes a week here!) get attached to the ones that generate the most excitement. In my school these were The Day the Crayons Quit, Unicorn Thinks He's Pretty Great, Mr. Tiger, and That is Not a Good Idea. I tend to go with the books that have large pictures and snappy stories that engage all the children. There are many children's choice awards, but this is not one of them, so congratulations to the very excellent books that won. I did read them to my classes, and they were for the most part well received, just maybe better for the more discerning readers.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 12:33

Elizabeth Law

I disagree with Sam's assertion that it's the nit-picking (I paraphrase) of committee members that is why the awards "aren't taken seriously" on the outside. I think very, very few people have any idea what goes on in those meetings. Many people even at children's publishers assume the committee members are the same year after year, kind of like Academy voters, and I have a friend who attended ALA frequently as an illustrator and assumed that I, a publisher and not a librarian, would be on the committee soon. I think the biggest common knock against these awards from the general public--at least the one I hear most often--is that The awards don't go to books that are popular with kids. Which of course is not even part of the awards' mandate!

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 11:07

Sam Juliano

When do I get my commission for helping this thread to fly? Ha!!!

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 02:55

Sam Juliano

Dean, let me give you a further example here of where I am coming from. I am a long time (fanatical) movie buff who has seen since the late 70's in upwards of 200 films a year in theaters. As a drama queen who loves awards-contests-ten best lists etc, I have posted a Top Ten movie list since those early days. This year as usual I did the same, naming 12 YEARS A SLAVE as the top film of 2013, with SHORT TERM 12, WADJDA, HER and MY BROTHER THE DEVIL rounding out my Top 5. In the US it is generally acknowledged that the New York Film Critics Circle is the most "prestigious" film voting body, and the one with the most elitist tastes for the most part. (Yes the National Society of Film Critics, which contains some of the same members is also a group with a long history of quality choices, and for a time a wonderful foreign-language film slant.) This year the said New York Film Critics Circle convened in early December and named AMERICAN HUSTLE as Best Film of 2013. Did the ramifications of that vote mean that I should embrace their choice and possible compromise my way of thinking? The 40 strong plus voting members of that organization are appointed film critics who write for print and online publications. Much like the Caldecott and Newbery committees they come to their final choices after a number of rounds and a general consensus building. Was I supposed to be intimidated that the NYFCC chose AMERICAN HUSTLE and embrace that choice even though in my own sense of aesthetic 12 YEARS A SLAVE was the year's most moving and artistically accomplished film? Do these critics hold a monopoly on taste and the ability to discern what is truly great vs. what doesn't hold up to scrutiny? I won't even waste my time using the Oscars as an example as unlike the critics and the ALA committees they often don't even see some of the subjects of their voting. The Oscars are no barometer of quality, but I still hold a party at my house every year, one that is attended by quite a few people. We find it a lot of fun, even while snickering at the process. If I found the results of the Caldecott Medal voting lacking in any kind of definitive round-up of the year's picture books, because of a marked lack of Honor book selections, why am I not allowed to express those feelings on these pages without being told over and over again that "the committee does a great job," "the process works," "the time spent is intense," "the group sees things that others may have missed" and "these people are super-qualified to determine the true meaning and presence of art?" I am well aware that I am largely alone at a site that is clearly dominated by ALA members and those who would rather not rock the boat. That's fair enough. Everyone has their own opinions and associations. But I must express astonishment at the reactions I have received from some here, reactions that have tried to paint me as a disgruntled contrarian who won't join the fan club. Sorry but I do not have to accept the vote of this years awards as a definitive statement of the best picture books had to offer. As such I also am within my rights to express those criticisms in a fair and civil way. These awards -and heck I do love em anyway and will write about them next year- are not the decree of irreproachable experts, but rather the joint "opinion" of a small group. The same can be said for the New York Film Critics Circle, a group that individually sees well over 400 films a year, a good number several times. They don't always get it right. Alas neither does the Caldecott committee.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 02:54

Sam Juliano

Dean, no need to mention the spelling mistake, though I guess it does hit home with a man whose B.A. and M.A. are both in English literature. The fact that you were on the committee (and I applaud you for that for sure!) would of course have you thinking in terms of the position your colleagues were in. As I have stated it is one thing to trust any process but quite another to let slights of this year's magnitude to go by without even the slightest indignation. You speak of the "energy" and "excitement" in that room and the wonderful vibes. I assure you as a father of five kids myself and a lifelong children's lit aficionado, I was celebrating this great event in my own way. I posted 20 reviews at my site -a Caldecott Contenders series- at a place that really specializes in film, theater and music reviews. This was my own passion and I did all I could to spread the word. I was thrilled to get numerous appreciative comments at the site and on facebook from some of the authors and illustrators of the books I covered. So I assured you my "scene-specific" criticisms here are not in the spirit of crashing any parties, but rather to propose a champagne toast. To your comment that a single criticism of a group mind-set as an "act of arrogance" I'd counter propose it is the other way around. Yes, quite right, I do feel I am within my rights to point out what I continue to feel was a a travesty at worst and a missed opportunity at best. There are many terrific book critics out there who don't need to take their leads from a small appointed committee. I respect that committee, and I applaud the time that committee put in to their decision-making, but I well within my rights and have confidence in my own artistic perceptions to voice disdain when I feel it is warranted. I stated earlier that I was NOT bemoaning the wins of LOCOMOTIVE, JOURNEY, MR, WUFFLES and FLORA, but was raising the real issue of the dearth of Honor books in one of the richest years in memory. You may think the process works -and it does to a certain extent- but sad to say there was a lot to be desired from what came down this year. This morning's tribute to MR. TIGER GOES WILD was a particularly animated reading to a large group. Smiles, laughs and utter glee were evident en masse.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 01:47

Dean Schneider

Sam -- I'm a teacher, too, not a librarian. But I am a member of ALA and have been on Newbery, Sibert (the correct spelling), and other committees. Mr. Tiger was my favorite picture book of the year, too, but I know how committees work, and I trust the process--I imagine there WERE flaws found that even reviewers didn't see or note, or the voting simply didn't go Mr. Tiger's way. I DO assume that the committee read the book more times and more closely than I did. (I think I'm a good reader, but I'm not arrogant enough to think my opinion is infallible compared to the collective consideration of 15 book experts seeking the best of the best.) To be in that room in Philadelphia when the awards were announced and seeing the energy and excitement for every award always affirms my love of children's books. It was a great year for picture books: congrats to those who won and all of the others.

Posted : Jan 30, 2014 01:25

Roger Sutton

Sam, criticizing the choices of the ALA award committees is the freaking national SPORT of children's librarians. But you would know this if you listened half as much as you talked.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 11:23

Sam Juliano

Just because none of us saw a fatal flaw in Mr. Tiger doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Right KT. Others didn't have the eyes to see a perceived "flaw" in a picture book, so "others" had to point this out. A picture book. One that so many of us have looked at hundreds of times. And that little flaw whatever it may be should disqualify the book, regardless of its magisterial quality. Well, if you look at Mr. WUFFLES you will find some inconsistencies too, not that I would find that to be a reason to disqualify. This is the problem here. Everyone believes this little group is infallible. Guess what? maybe they did get it all wrong. Maybe NINO WRESTLES THE WORLD should have been chosen. And that is a great book to champion. These people do not monopolize good taste and judgment at all. I have moved on from the sheep mentality in discussing the awards. I have no issue with you at all, and no desire to be at odds in any way with you. I responded to Roger's call for discussion, and what I got from him was a curt 11 word response, aimed at squelching opinion in the better interest of ALA validation.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 10:52

KT Horning

Just because none of us saw a fatal flaw in Mr. Tiger doesn't mean one doesn't exist. And all it takes is for one committee member to see it and point it out. It can be something as simple as pictures being swallowed up in the gutter. Or an inconsistency in the illustrations. Or an error. But because the proceedings are confidential, we'll never know. Roger asked for theories so I gave him one. If he had asked for our emotional responses, I would have stamped my foot and cried and screamed that the Caldecott Committee didn't give the award to MY favorite book, which was Niño Wrestles the World. Don't get me started.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 10:25

Sam Juliano

"Maybe the committee members did not like the fact that the number of stripes on Tiger’s tail varied from spread to spread." And of course that is a far more valid reason to disqualify a book that spoke to so many children (and adults) in such a personal way, that has many kids wanting to return to over and over. And it should certainly trump over what is one of the year's most unified and beautifully written books where image and word are wed to perfection. Of course. Looks like the Siebert committee had their own sets of invalidating rules, and one of them wasn't physical accuracy. They named PARROTS OVER PUERTO RICO the best non-fiction book (even ahead of LOCOMOTIVE) despite some pointed criticism of the number of "talons." So then, we must conclude that each of these committees (composed of some of the same kind of professionals) has a different criteria for how they choose. And that in itself is contradictory.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 10:23

Amy

"It’s likely that the committee simply found four other books it liked more. But why let common sense get in the way of a good theory?" I love it! It's likely that the committee did simply find four other books it liked more. But, I'll throw out three theories for you: 1. Too similar to Jon Klassen, who's garnered a lot of attention the past two years; 2. Mr. Tiger doesn't need a Caldecott. It's already oozing kid-appeal and will get lots of attention absent an award (getting back to last year's debate regarding award winners and whether they should have widespread kid appeal); and 3. The best part of Peter Brown's illustrations in Mr. Tiger is, to me, the interplay between the illustrations and the text. The committee didn't seem to care about interplay between text and illustrations; none of the books they selected had any of that going on.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 09:30

KT Horning

Whenever there is a book that has a lot of buzz leading up to the award announcements and then it gets nothing, I always assume that someone on the committee found a fatal flaw, that little loose thread that generally goes unnoticed, but once someone tugs at it, the whole book unravels.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 08:35

Elizabeth Law

ooh, calling out the length of Time of Wonder, good one! Kids used to literally run from the room when they played that filmstrip at the Belmont Public Library. Which makes me wonder--what's the longest text of a Caldecott winner? I sort of remember The Fool of the World and His Flying Ship being longish but that might have been my perspective as a child. And I LOVE the idea of a panel that chews over the winners and I wish I could attend--as someone in the publishing field, I'm always too terrified to say much in print about any winner! It's hard to navigate that minefield without inadvertently giving offense to someone. I will add, though, that I adored Rita Williams-Garcia's P.S. Be Eleven, and I would have loved to have seen it get a Newbery Honor along with its Coretta Scott King Medal.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 07:38

Roger Sutton

Sam--take a lesson from the Caldecott Honors: less is more.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 07:33

Sam Juliano

Roger, I have stated my case on other threads and don't mean to embrace repetition, but as you invite speculation I'll try and be brief. Fine and well, as Robin asserts the committee may have found three or four books they liked more. There is no way under the sun that MR. TIGER GOES WILD is inferior to the three books that won the honors. In fact the way I see it it is roughly equal to JOURNEY and stronger than the other two books, both of which are excellent in any case. Like every awards group, the small Caldecott committee only represent a tiny part of the book-loving and book-evaluating population. The matter of inconsistency in the number of stripes is rather ludicrous and laughable, since such a contention did not come into play when the distinguished writers from the New York Times, Kirkus, School Library Journal, the home field Horn Book and virtually every last book critics worth a salt posted there favorite books of the year. The audience award here at the Horn Book yielded what was esentially a tie for favorite book of the year with JOURNEY. The subversive element in MR. TIGER GOES WILD played spectacularly with young kids, older kids and with adults who enjoy a bit of spice in their meals. And pictorially MR. TIGER was without question one of the year's most beautifully illustrated. So what did a small "appointed" committee find that thousands of other book lovers did not, that scholarly book critics did not? The answer alas lies at the matter of just how valid are the awards as a definitive barometer of excellence. Sorry but it is simply not enough to "work hard all year on this committee" if the final results are either blinkered or devoid of general perceptions reached by people who are at least as qualified as the voters, some obviously even more so. The entire system of having a majority in that room that support a particular book may be a major problem--I don't know enough about the voting intricacies to make a fair stab other than what I just posed. But the bottom line here is this. It is simply UNACCEPTABLE to leave out MR. TIGER GOES WILD in a limited field of four books awarded (i gold, 3 silver.) It is UNACCEPTABLE. If the group had awarded five or even six (the latter unprecedented, I know) honor books, we could at least give a partial excuse that the group was smitten with so many books that the omission was more the result of a book celebration where the Tiger may have gotten lost in the crowd. But not here. What happened was even more insulting to Peter Brown, who must have been shocked by what came down. In effect the Caldecott committee told book lovers everywhere that MR. TIGER GOES WILD was NOT good enough to occupy one of two open slots -as we all know last year they went with five- and DECIDED TO LEAVE THE SPOT VACANT than to occupy it with one of the decade's greatest picture books. There is really no excuse, irregardless of what the common protocol the voters maintain. The end result of the proceedings is all that matter. Ironically enough, Brown won a Caldecott Honor last year for CREEPY CARROTS, a mildly delightful book in a year that was clearly inferior to the one just completed Yes, different committees I know, but still, they all carry the burden of responsibility. To issue blanket praise for them for whatever reason and say "the process works" when in effect it did NOT WORK this year is an affrontery to those like myself who still take this awards seriously and are annually smitten with their execution. I have a collection of 700 HC picture books, and make it a point of acquiring the medals for each book that has won such. I love picture books. And I love what the Caldecott Medal means for most and how it is as a classroom tool. I am deeply saddened at the mind-set that time and again show the Caldecott Medal committe as unwilling or unmotivated to embrace artistic excellence in the manner that should be employed. More honor books? You bet, especially in a year as rich as this one. If there are rules that must be followed, well, then these rules should be discussed and altered so that this year's travesty will not be repeated again. I feel terrible for Peter Brown, who I know is just a class guy. Needless to say he was not the only one to fall victim to the stringent application of only three honors--I have mentioned books like: Stardines Across the Sky The Mighty Lalouche A Splash of Red Bluebird On A Beam of Light The Dark Nino Wrestles the World Inside Outside Parrots Over Puerto Rico .........and so on. In any case, these are my feelings. God willing I will be pounding the pavement again next year, and if I feel there has been injustice as there was this year, I won't hesitate to express my feelings. Needless to say I did love all four winners exceedingly, but that is hardly the issue here. Roger, is that seminar being held in Boston? I am tempted to apply for it with my wife is is the principal of the school I teach at in NJ right outside of Manhattan. Thanks for letting me get on my soapbox! Ha!.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 07:30

SDL

This committee clearly was willing to read long text and pore over wordless books (which in my experience is sort of hard work) so maybe a short, snappy story with great pictures just wasn't especially interesting to them. Maybe it looked simple in comparison. It definitely won the SDL Personal Caldecott Award, though.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 07:20

KT Horning

No theory, but props on the Buffy meme.

Posted : Jan 29, 2014 06:13