I think we have come to that let’s shake hands and agree to agree that E&P will not (except in that land where life is beautiful all day long and I”l be happy to see those nice young…) be on the Newbery table, which may be excluding some worthy books.

It should be noted that even if we were all to agree that these books are eligible and even if we were to agree that my [too] liberal interpretation of the rules were acceptable, that STILL would not make these books a lock to win the award or even receive an honor. There are a LOT of fine books out there in the big wide world. I am just pleased that we have had the discussion on both the older end (Chime) and the younger end of the scale because it is important to see the extent of what books to consider and to remember that the range IS from the very young up and including age 14.

I have not read enough to really feel comfortable insisting on E&P books for the Newbery and really, here, I just want to make a case that we tend to overlook books for my first graders when considering what should be on the Newbery table. I really do understand the argument you and Monica and others make about how to read that section; I also enjoy pounding against that door from time to time in the hopes that, perhaps, more and more folks will begin to wonder why so few books for our youngest readers ever seem to find a place on the Newbery list. Change comes slow and that is probably a very good thing for the Newbery but sometimes change is required regardless of its speed and we have to start by questioning assumptions and fine-tuning manual language and dealing with very different ways of creating books that increase the authors ability to create visuals of all kinds, including graphic novels, illustrated books, and books that feature photography–Have you heard me argue about people like Nic Bishop deserving Caldecott awards? Another day; different blog! Thanks.

It seems to me that you are re-writing the rule book in a way, Ed, when you say that committee members “may also include the blend of text and picture for the very young reader.” That certainly would suit your needs in this case, but I think you are stretching the terms big time.

In a way, the expanded terms *do* handicap the award towards older readers – there is a large section on when books for the very oldest part of the audience (the “special” 13- and 14-year olds) that has been discussed here in relation to Chime, but really only a passing mention of the younger part of the audience with Frog & Toad as an example. It’s a shame that there isn’t more to work with on books for younger folks, as well as the graphic novels / illustrated books (that’s my biggest pet peeve right there). But, I don’t know that the terms are going to be changed any time soon, so I guess we’re stuck having this argument every year.

Have I mentioned how happy I would be to be proven wrong on this one? How awesome would it be to be sitting in Dallas and hear Mo’s name mentioned under the Newbery category…

I am with Jonathan on this one in thinking that it is a mistake to think that one has to ignore the pictures. Sure the text has to be the primary consideration (PRIMARY consideration; not EXCLUSIVE consideration). Monica and others reads the next line as ruling out consideration of pictures completely. I think, however, that when the line before says “primarily” what this means for the following line is that one can mention negative aspects of JUST the art or JUST the design without dealing with the text when they detract. Otherwise, committee members are to consider the text primarily but may ALSO include the blend of TEXT and picture for the very young reader because these books, by definition, are both. And what Willems has done with text and picture is a significant contribution and should not be eliminated from consideration.

Otherwise why would the manual use the word “primarily?” What else is there that is not illustrations, overall design, etc.?

And if Monica and others still do not agree (which is fine), I will ask again: Is this a de facto change in the Newbery age range? Can books that must have illustrations, controlled vocabulary, and other age appropriate considerations EVER win the Newbery? Should we say that the Newbery terms say that the age range is birth to 14 but what this really means is about 8 -14?

I think a good case can be made for Willems for Interpretation of theme/concept; Presentation of info (accuracy/clarity/organization); Development of a plot, Delineation of characters; and Appropriateness of style. He falls short in the setting area (but these are guidelines and not absolutes). And, again, we are comparing writing for the younger end of the Newbery with other writing for the younger end of the Newbery. What Willems does for our younger readers is truly distinguished. I know that we all share this sentiment. Where we disagree is in consideration of whether or not it meets Newbery standards and follows the rules of the manual. This is worth discussing and I have never had a problem with accepting the wisdom of consensus, even when I am in the minority.

I DO understand Monica’s frustration and her argument (and I applaud her integrity). She believes that word primarily followed by the next lines mean exactly as she is arguing: that the text is the exclusive consideration unless an excellent text is hindered by artwork or design so terrible that it diminishes an otherwise excellent text. Then the text is still the primary consideration; it is just diminished by flaws elsewhere. Consequently, she explains why the word, ‘primarily” is used and is not swayed by my argument that those lines of the manual may be read in a different way (as I explain above).

My argument is, admittedly, more of a stretch because it assumes that those who drafted the manual with the age range from birth to 14 were well aware of the developmental needs of our youngest readers and did, indeed, understand that these books MUST include illustrations, fewer words, etc. I don’t think the intention was to exclude these books from Newbery consideration. I think Monica’s interpretation of the rule excludes these books from consideration and I think Jonathan’s way of viewing the manual does not. I am not swayed by Monica’s argument because she hasn’t shown my how books for younger readers would ever win the Newbery, and the range is birth to 14.

Ed

Which brings me to a question: how much can the committee consider text spacing? As more and more books play with the conventions of their genre, how do those visual elements factor in? One of the charms of the E&P series is just that: the spacing…. does that make a difference? Can it?

http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/books/zolotow.asp

And the Gryphon Award (sponsored by the CCB) recognizes the best transitional book for kingergarten through fourth grade–

http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/books/zolotow.asp

And, of course, the Geisel Medal (sponsored by ALSC) recognizes the best easy reader for PreK through second grade.

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/geiselaward/index.cfm

Of course, none of these carry the prestige of the Newbery Medal . . .

I will once again **EMPHATICALLY** state that nowhere in the criteria does it say you must ignore the pictures; rather it says that the Newbery Medal must be based primarily on the text. Monica has mentioned her difficulty with the illustrations in HUGO CABRET, yet that same year her Newbery committee chose GOOD MASTERS! SWEET LADIES! which featured a strong book design and full color illustrations. I can’t imagine how you can do that without at least a cursory discussion of how the illustrations function in regard to each of those respective texts. This is not the same as discussing the illustrations and crediting their strengths to the texts.

The criteria not only charge us to consider books for the entire range (0-14), but remind us that there are no limitations as to the character of the book (fiction, nonfiction, poetry, picture book, easy reader). Most of the books within the stated age range contain illustrations of one kind or another, and the ones in the bottom half of that range (0-7) always contain them.

When you look at each of the line-item criteria that Sam included above, you have to ask yourself: What does this look like in a book for a four-year-old? If you try to compare it to OKAY FOR NOW then, well, of course, you’re not going to find the same kind of sophistication, what Monica calls amazing, writerly things. Each book is different. The text for I BROKE MY TRUNK! won’t blow you away in the same way as OKAY FOR NOW. But then, too, you won’t be sending me a YouTube video of a two-year-old reading OKAY FOR NOW either.

Earlier, you asked: “When does the committee’s charge to find that “most significant contribution” of the year trump the requirement to ignore the pictures unless they detract from the text? Or is this not possible?”

I would answer, NO, it’s not possible. Not with the criteria stating all that they do. If that humongous Newbery terms and criteria manual were ever to be boiled down to simply read “most significant contribution to children’s literature” then maybe. But as long as there is other criteria making it difficult to argue THESE books for THIS award, it’s probably not going to happen.

Doesn’t mean we dislike the books.