While I do believe that CHIME is suitable and eligible (and probably the most distinguished title that forces us to have this debate), I cannot get behind it for other reasons. We have seen quite a range of responses on this list, but since most of them are negative (either too-old or not-distinguished-enough), I think CHIME will be a difficult title to build Newbery consensus around, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered because *all* distinguished titles for the *entire* range should be considered.

And if some book published for adults should speak to a child audience (WHERE THE RED FERN GROWS, for example) then I would like to see the Newbery committee pursue it.

2. Your focus is wrong. We don’t care whether authors wrote with children in mind, but rather we care about the READER of the book. All of the criteria point to this, from “The book displays respect for children’s understandings, abilities, and appreciations” to the further questions and guidelines in the Expanded Examples & Definitons. None of them focus on the intentions of the writer and/or the publisher, but rather on how the child audience (i.e. the inteded potential audience) is receiving the book.

The criteria states (as Eric put): “distinguished contribution to American literature FOR children”

That word “for” tells me that you definitely need to be aware of the intended audience for a book when discussing it’s eligibility for the award. I don’t see how your A MONSTER CALLS comparison really fits, or clears up your point. To me, A MONSTER CALLS should be eligible because of what the criteria clearly state. You were “implying” the criteria (in that case) to mean something else, otherwise deeming it ineligible. But here, you’re wanting to argue that the criteria mean exactly as they say (trying to make a different point) . . .

Besides, when you say: “Don’t the criteria here mean exactly what they say they do? That is, that any book with a fourteen-year-old reader may be considered?” I think you’re a little off base. The criteria DOES NOT say that any book with a 14-year old reader may be considered. It says that any book written FOR children (up to 14) may be considered. I believe the two to be different. Any 14 year old can read ANY book. If you cannot argue that the book was written with them in mind, I don’t see how it can be eligible based on the criteria. And if your go-to argument is the idea that all children, regardless of age, are part child, part adult, I think that’s kind of weak.

If Billingsley wanted CHIME to be read by 14 year olds the world over, why did she choose to make Briony a deep, mature 17 year old young woman?

I’d like to circle back to the A MONSTER CALLS eligibility discussion briefly. We had some people that were quite adamant that the criteria mean exactly what they said. The criteria said that A MONSTER CALLS is eligible, and nothing in the example could negate that. So . . .

Don’t the criteria here mean exactly what they say they do? That is, that any book with a fourteen-year-old reader may be considered? I’m not alarmed by the thought of having such a large field because the practical limitations of what is humanly possible to read coupled with the difficult process of building consensus bring the Medal and Honor books more in line with our expectations.

The first term in the criteria states: “distinguished contribution to American literature for children”

But if we are saying that the word ‘children’ is meaningless (assuming there is a 14 year old some where who can read any adult book regardless of content, or age of characters) then the criteria might as well state: Distinguished contribution to American literature.

I’m sure some 14 year old somewhere read Octavian Nothing back in 2006. Are we really thinking that the newbery committee overlooked Anderson’s masterpiece in favor of Higher Power of Lucky? I believe it’s clear which of these titles was the greatest contribution to American literature but at the same time I personally don’t believe said contibution was to American literature for children.

Now I am not saying that CHIME is as old as Octavian or most adult books published but I would like to know if there is a line at all and if so what is keeping CHIME on the “children’s” side of the line but keeping Lev Grossman on the adult side?

I can see why you may be tired of rehashing an argument that was discussed in depth previously…

However, at some point committee members have to decide this very question: Is the book eligible according to the criterion that mandates up to 14.

I get that ANY person carries infinite age characteristics within his or her soul. I get that we wander back and forth between the poles of young and old. I get that within this individual 14 year old prototype there are parts that are not children. However, the award is for children. The award IS for that part that IS a child and members must come to grips with exactly what this means before voting.

Kudos to Nina and others who have me rethinking my position; I am not sure I am with them when it comes to Chime, but at least I understand the position AND, more importantly, it will influence how I approach the next chime or lips touch twice. That is what I enjoy about this new (for me) Heavy Metal Blog.