<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wonderstruck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/</link>
	<description>A Mock Newbery Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:12:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Book Talk Tuesday: Awed by Brian Selznick&#8217;s Wonderstruck &#171;</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-72766</link>
		<dc:creator>Book Talk Tuesday: Awed by Brian Selznick&#8217;s Wonderstruck &#171;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:05:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-72766</guid>
		<description>[...] of stunning black and white artwork that is the trademark of Selznick. In the review written by Jonathan Hunt for School Library Journal, he described it as such: The first textual chapter is 12 pages long, the subsequent visual chapter [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of stunning black and white artwork that is the trademark of Selznick. In the review written by Jonathan Hunt for School Library Journal, he described it as such: The first textual chapter is 12 pages long, the subsequent visual chapter [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wendy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-66060</link>
		<dc:creator>Wendy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-66060</guid>
		<description>I flipped through and reread parts of this book today, and while I stand by my criticisms, none of them seemed as important on a third reading, at least taken out of context. Who knows?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I flipped through and reread parts of this book today, and while I stand by my criticisms, none of them seemed as important on a third reading, at least taken out of context. Who knows?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liam</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-65580</link>
		<dc:creator>Liam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-65580</guid>
		<description>When you begin to “read” Wonderstruck you believe Mr. Selznick is telling two stories and not one. The story of Ben and of Rose are clearly set at different times .Yet the relationship between these two stories only grows to reveal just how intertwined Ben and Roses lives actually are. Ben is a boy growing up in rural Minnesota in the 1970’s. He has just suddenly lost his only known parent, his mom. Ben shortly after losing his mom in another twist of fate also loses the hearing in his only functioning ear. Rose’s story is set in the 1920’s. Rose is a girl who is deaf, isolated and misunderstood in the relationships she has. She is eager to go out into the world around her to find something more. Ben too decides to go out into the world, more specifically NYC, to follow clues he’s gathered from his mother’s private belongings. Ben believes these clues will lead him to his dad whom he knows little about.

 

     Both Ben and Rose at personal risk become seekers. Interestingly what they each sought that starts their venture is not what they find, but, what they find is exactly what they really sought. What is so creative and innovative is that the stories are not told in the same language and the difference is Rose’s story is told with no written words only a language of image, gesture, silent thought and feeling and Ben’s story is told in written words of English which evokes all those same things. Each story enriches the other. There is suspense, mystery, the lost, the found and this incredible plot twist as the actual relationship between Ben and Rose is revealed.

 

    When I read this book I knew it was distinguished. Wonderstruck easily meets the key criteria to award the Newbery: 1- Quality of theme. The books theme is interwoven between the two stories and how this is revealed makes it original and innovative 2- Quality in presentation of information (accuracy, clarity and organization). The two stories could not have come together as a whole and worked so well if the presentation failed to provide these necessary elements of information. 3-Well developed plot. The plot and timing is well developed or this original and innovative way of telling Ben and Roses story would not have worked as well as it did. In. 4- Well delineation of characters. The characters are well-defined, believable and you become easily involved in what happens with them 5- Well delineated settings. The settings work even if they begin at two very different places and times and then they merge in this unexpected and satisfying way. 6- Appropriateness of style. Mr. Selznick’s style of storytelling is so unique and it brings so much more to the table then words alone can. He sets the bar that much higher for all other authors this year. 

 

    The story style presented through written and image language communicates more than either could on its own.. This book has much to offer children of all ages no matter what their reading level precisely because it uses a universal language and not just the written one. Children do not need to depend on the written word to experience and enjoy this book. This I believe is what distinguishes Mr. Selznick from all the other notable books on this year’s Newbery short list.

 

    Maybe because I’m 9 years old I miss the controversy the adults see in nominating Wonderstruck for the Newbery award.  Some adults don’t believe there are enough written words and the story depends too much on pictures.  I just don’t understand how the committee can ignore such a distinguished book based on a lack of “Text” for imagery and believe Mr. Selznick somehow comes up short because there are not enough written words telling his story. I personally never found my “Textbooks” superior to real literature yet no one would dispute their abundance of valuable text. Is the number of written words or images important? And when did that become more important than the story telling. Consider how Mr. Selznick succeeds where others fear to tread and he does it without the familiar ( for some of us) sounds words make in our head as their read.

 

     Mr. Selznick has found a way to use an familiar and unfamiliar language to tell the whole story in an way that is always appropriate and in context. Mr. Melcher would be made proud if the committee fulfills the purpose he set when he created the Newbery award and that was to encourage, recognize, support and reward original creative work in the field of children’s literature. What work this year is more creative, original or evolves the standard of children’s literature than Mr. Selznick in Wonderstruck? None!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When you begin to “read” Wonderstruck you believe Mr. Selznick is telling two stories and not one. The story of Ben and of Rose are clearly set at different times .Yet the relationship between these two stories only grows to reveal just how intertwined Ben and Roses lives actually are. Ben is a boy growing up in rural Minnesota in the 1970’s. He has just suddenly lost his only known parent, his mom. Ben shortly after losing his mom in another twist of fate also loses the hearing in his only functioning ear. Rose’s story is set in the 1920’s. Rose is a girl who is deaf, isolated and misunderstood in the relationships she has. She is eager to go out into the world around her to find something more. Ben too decides to go out into the world, more specifically NYC, to follow clues he’s gathered from his mother’s private belongings. Ben believes these clues will lead him to his dad whom he knows little about.</p>
<p>     Both Ben and Rose at personal risk become seekers. Interestingly what they each sought that starts their venture is not what they find, but, what they find is exactly what they really sought. What is so creative and innovative is that the stories are not told in the same language and the difference is Rose’s story is told with no written words only a language of image, gesture, silent thought and feeling and Ben’s story is told in written words of English which evokes all those same things. Each story enriches the other. There is suspense, mystery, the lost, the found and this incredible plot twist as the actual relationship between Ben and Rose is revealed.</p>
<p>    When I read this book I knew it was distinguished. Wonderstruck easily meets the key criteria to award the Newbery: 1- Quality of theme. The books theme is interwoven between the two stories and how this is revealed makes it original and innovative 2- Quality in presentation of information (accuracy, clarity and organization). The two stories could not have come together as a whole and worked so well if the presentation failed to provide these necessary elements of information. 3-Well developed plot. The plot and timing is well developed or this original and innovative way of telling Ben and Roses story would not have worked as well as it did. In. 4- Well delineation of characters. The characters are well-defined, believable and you become easily involved in what happens with them 5- Well delineated settings. The settings work even if they begin at two very different places and times and then they merge in this unexpected and satisfying way. 6- Appropriateness of style. Mr. Selznick’s style of storytelling is so unique and it brings so much more to the table then words alone can. He sets the bar that much higher for all other authors this year. </p>
<p>    The story style presented through written and image language communicates more than either could on its own.. This book has much to offer children of all ages no matter what their reading level precisely because it uses a universal language and not just the written one. Children do not need to depend on the written word to experience and enjoy this book. This I believe is what distinguishes Mr. Selznick from all the other notable books on this year’s Newbery short list.</p>
<p>    Maybe because I’m 9 years old I miss the controversy the adults see in nominating Wonderstruck for the Newbery award.  Some adults don’t believe there are enough written words and the story depends too much on pictures.  I just don’t understand how the committee can ignore such a distinguished book based on a lack of “Text” for imagery and believe Mr. Selznick somehow comes up short because there are not enough written words telling his story. I personally never found my “Textbooks” superior to real literature yet no one would dispute their abundance of valuable text. Is the number of written words or images important? And when did that become more important than the story telling. Consider how Mr. Selznick succeeds where others fear to tread and he does it without the familiar ( for some of us) sounds words make in our head as their read.</p>
<p>     Mr. Selznick has found a way to use an familiar and unfamiliar language to tell the whole story in an way that is always appropriate and in context. Mr. Melcher would be made proud if the committee fulfills the purpose he set when he created the Newbery award and that was to encourage, recognize, support and reward original creative work in the field of children’s literature. What work this year is more creative, original or evolves the standard of children’s literature than Mr. Selznick in Wonderstruck? None!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. H</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-65112</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:09:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-65112</guid>
		<description>Another nitpick, a geography thing, in the letter Ben finds from Daniel in the museum he mentions arriving in Minneapolis and then a 5 hour drive to Gunflint Lake. I live in Iowa and I&#039;m pretty familiar with Minnesota. Based on my calculations, taking interstate 35 much of the way, at least through Duluth, that&#039;s AT LEAST a 6 hour drive. How was Daniel making that trip in the 1920&#039;s in 5 hours? Big deal, probably not. But in a way it reinforces my bigger concern, that more care went into creating the whole package of what this book was going to be (illustrations and all), and not enough time and careful thought went into the actual story it was telling.

And to expand on what Wendy was saying earlier, about Ben traveling to New York, remember this was a kid who&#039;s dream vacation was a trip to Duluth, MN. Which is 2-3 hours south of Gunflint Lake. That tells me this kid doesn&#039;t get out much. So we are suddenly to imagine that hopping on a bus and traveling across the country, is something within the realm of possibility for this kid. I don&#039;t buy it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another nitpick, a geography thing, in the letter Ben finds from Daniel in the museum he mentions arriving in Minneapolis and then a 5 hour drive to Gunflint Lake. I live in Iowa and I&#8217;m pretty familiar with Minnesota. Based on my calculations, taking interstate 35 much of the way, at least through Duluth, that&#8217;s AT LEAST a 6 hour drive. How was Daniel making that trip in the 1920&#8242;s in 5 hours? Big deal, probably not. But in a way it reinforces my bigger concern, that more care went into creating the whole package of what this book was going to be (illustrations and all), and not enough time and careful thought went into the actual story it was telling.</p>
<p>And to expand on what Wendy was saying earlier, about Ben traveling to New York, remember this was a kid who&#8217;s dream vacation was a trip to Duluth, MN. Which is 2-3 hours south of Gunflint Lake. That tells me this kid doesn&#8217;t get out much. So we are suddenly to imagine that hopping on a bus and traveling across the country, is something within the realm of possibility for this kid. I don&#8217;t buy it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. H</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-65102</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. H</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-65102</guid>
		<description>The reason I am able to forgive OKAY FOR NOW its improbabilities and not a book like WONDERSTRUCK (at least when discussing for the Newbery Medal), is because through his writing, Schmidt takes his time developing Doug as a character. Sure OKAY FOR NOW takes place in the 1970s, like much of WONDERSTRUCK, but I actually would argue that what people are missing from OKAY FOR NOW is that I&#039;m not sure Schmidt actually ever meant for it to take place in our world. It&#039;s a type of fiction where he&#039;s altering certain events. I&#039;m okay with that, because I believe in Doug because Schmidt gave him a voice. The improbabilities come later.

In WONDERSTRUCK, the improbabilities come almost immediately. From the instant Ben looks at all the items in the room and magically determines that they must be leading him to New York. We don&#039;t get to know Ben as a character before these leaps occur. Selznick just kind of expects us to suspend disbelief from the beginning. And that&#039;s more because he trusts the format in which he&#039;s telling his story.

The fact that Ben just hops on a bus in Duluth, MN and rides to New York City, and then is able to just seamlessly find his way around New York, is kind of silly. Especially since he&#039;s just recently lost the hearing in his other ear, making him fully deaf. The improbability that we&#039;re speaking of in WONDERSTRUCK, feels cheap because it moves the plot along. That&#039;s not the same as OKAY FOR NOW. 

If you pull out character development, setting, and plot (which the duel stories converging is not at all original), I don&#039;t think you can make convincing arguments based on the text in terms of the Newbery. I think people are being wowed by the format, which I really don&#039;t understand because after his work in HUGO CABRET, even the format isn&#039;t entirely original anymore. Thanks to Selznick himself! 

I think the format is ingenious, but I&#039;m not sure I liked HUGO CABRET or WONDERSTRUCK enough to fully endorse either title. I&#039;ll keep reading his books, should he return to the format again, because it is engaging. I just feel like the story is being overhyped based on the format in which it&#039;s told.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason I am able to forgive OKAY FOR NOW its improbabilities and not a book like WONDERSTRUCK (at least when discussing for the Newbery Medal), is because through his writing, Schmidt takes his time developing Doug as a character. Sure OKAY FOR NOW takes place in the 1970s, like much of WONDERSTRUCK, but I actually would argue that what people are missing from OKAY FOR NOW is that I&#8217;m not sure Schmidt actually ever meant for it to take place in our world. It&#8217;s a type of fiction where he&#8217;s altering certain events. I&#8217;m okay with that, because I believe in Doug because Schmidt gave him a voice. The improbabilities come later.</p>
<p>In WONDERSTRUCK, the improbabilities come almost immediately. From the instant Ben looks at all the items in the room and magically determines that they must be leading him to New York. We don&#8217;t get to know Ben as a character before these leaps occur. Selznick just kind of expects us to suspend disbelief from the beginning. And that&#8217;s more because he trusts the format in which he&#8217;s telling his story.</p>
<p>The fact that Ben just hops on a bus in Duluth, MN and rides to New York City, and then is able to just seamlessly find his way around New York, is kind of silly. Especially since he&#8217;s just recently lost the hearing in his other ear, making him fully deaf. The improbability that we&#8217;re speaking of in WONDERSTRUCK, feels cheap because it moves the plot along. That&#8217;s not the same as OKAY FOR NOW. </p>
<p>If you pull out character development, setting, and plot (which the duel stories converging is not at all original), I don&#8217;t think you can make convincing arguments based on the text in terms of the Newbery. I think people are being wowed by the format, which I really don&#8217;t understand because after his work in HUGO CABRET, even the format isn&#8217;t entirely original anymore. Thanks to Selznick himself! </p>
<p>I think the format is ingenious, but I&#8217;m not sure I liked HUGO CABRET or WONDERSTRUCK enough to fully endorse either title. I&#8217;ll keep reading his books, should he return to the format again, because it is engaging. I just feel like the story is being overhyped based on the format in which it&#8217;s told.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Hunt</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-64237</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Hunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-64237</guid>
		<description>I hasten to add that CRISS CROSS, WHITTINGTON, and SHOW WAY also featured significant undiscussable graphic features so you could argue that they, too, were arguably just as disadvantaged in the discussions, although probably less so in WHITTINGTON where they are just as incidental as they are in GOOD MASTERS!

Changing the Newbery criteria would be very, very difficult, and given the fact that committees have wrestled with the present criteria and still manage occasionally to recognize books with significant graphic features makes me think it extremely unlikely.  Monica&#039;s lament sidesteps the fact that even if we could have considered both words and pictures for COUNTDOWN and/or HUGO CABRET it doesn&#039;t necessarily mean that she herself or we, as a hypothetical committee, would have deemed them the most distinguished in their respective years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hasten to add that CRISS CROSS, WHITTINGTON, and SHOW WAY also featured significant undiscussable graphic features so you could argue that they, too, were arguably just as disadvantaged in the discussions, although probably less so in WHITTINGTON where they are just as incidental as they are in GOOD MASTERS!</p>
<p>Changing the Newbery criteria would be very, very difficult, and given the fact that committees have wrestled with the present criteria and still manage occasionally to recognize books with significant graphic features makes me think it extremely unlikely.  Monica&#8217;s lament sidesteps the fact that even if we could have considered both words and pictures for COUNTDOWN and/or HUGO CABRET it doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean that she herself or we, as a hypothetical committee, would have deemed them the most distinguished in their respective years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Flowers</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-64215</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Flowers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-64215</guid>
		<description>Jonathan - I of course agree with you that WONDERSTRUCK or I BROKE MY TRUNK can and should be considered, I completely agree with Monica: the Newbery criteria are hopelessly out of date for the types of children&#039;s books that are being produced today.  I&#039;m not very familiar with the Caldecott criteria, but they seem to have a little more leeway in considering the text, but still are really awarding the book with the best illustrations, instead of the best picture book.  So a great book like THE MONEY WE&#039;LL SAVE could (theoretically) be eliminated from both discussions because 1) the text alone isn&#039;t distinguished enough and 2) some other picture book has better illustrations, even if it has a much inferior text.  This seems like a huge injustice.

Getting back to Monica&#039;s point about WONDERSTRUCK: why *should* WONDERSTRUCK or HITLER YOUTH have to fight with a hand tied behind its back.  Let they have both hands in the fight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jonathan &#8211; I of course agree with you that WONDERSTRUCK or I BROKE MY TRUNK can and should be considered, I completely agree with Monica: the Newbery criteria are hopelessly out of date for the types of children&#8217;s books that are being produced today.  I&#8217;m not very familiar with the Caldecott criteria, but they seem to have a little more leeway in considering the text, but still are really awarding the book with the best illustrations, instead of the best picture book.  So a great book like THE MONEY WE&#8217;LL SAVE could (theoretically) be eliminated from both discussions because 1) the text alone isn&#8217;t distinguished enough and 2) some other picture book has better illustrations, even if it has a much inferior text.  This seems like a huge injustice.</p>
<p>Getting back to Monica&#8217;s point about WONDERSTRUCK: why *should* WONDERSTRUCK or HITLER YOUTH have to fight with a hand tied behind its back.  Let they have both hands in the fight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Hunt</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-64204</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Hunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-64204</guid>
		<description>We had this conundrum the year that I served on the committee, too, and we actually recognized a book where half of the story was told in pictures and the other half in text.  This book, HITLER YOUTH, was essentially fighting with one hand tied behind it&#039;s back--and it still managed a Newbery Honor.  It was very frustrating to not consider the pictures because they weren&#039;t just pictures, they were primary sources (any analysis of HITLER YOUTH as a serious work of history would have discussed them at length), and they were carefully selected to not only tell a parallel story, but an independent one.  So, if HITLER YOUTH can win a Newbery Honor for its text--which was just as much a part of its whole--then why not WONDERSTRUCK?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We had this conundrum the year that I served on the committee, too, and we actually recognized a book where half of the story was told in pictures and the other half in text.  This book, HITLER YOUTH, was essentially fighting with one hand tied behind it&#8217;s back&#8211;and it still managed a Newbery Honor.  It was very frustrating to not consider the pictures because they weren&#8217;t just pictures, they were primary sources (any analysis of HITLER YOUTH as a serious work of history would have discussed them at length), and they were carefully selected to not only tell a parallel story, but an independent one.  So, if HITLER YOUTH can win a Newbery Honor for its text&#8211;which was just as much a part of its whole&#8211;then why not WONDERSTRUCK?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monica Edinger</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-64201</link>
		<dc:creator>Monica Edinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-64201</guid>
		<description>Ha... just realized that missing sense could be hearing right?  But in this case it is my appreciation of the visual aesthetic and how it makes this a whole story experience.  By not discussing Rose&#039;s story because you can&#039;t something huge is missing for me here.  Same problem I had last year with COUNTDOWN and before it HUGO CABRET.  I want the Newbery criteria CHANGED so that these books can be recognized for all that they are, not part of what they are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha&#8230; just realized that missing sense could be hearing right?  But in this case it is my appreciation of the visual aesthetic and how it makes this a whole story experience.  By not discussing Rose&#8217;s story because you can&#8217;t something huge is missing for me here.  Same problem I had last year with COUNTDOWN and before it HUGO CABRET.  I want the Newbery criteria CHANGED so that these books can be recognized for all that they are, not part of what they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monica Edinger</title>
		<link>http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/#comment-64199</link>
		<dc:creator>Monica Edinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/?p=2042#comment-64199</guid>
		<description>I admire all the careful arguments for this book, but I still feel I&#039;m looking at it with one of my senses turned-off, trying to walk on one leg, or otherwise considering it in an incomplete way.  Hard enough (as I wrote in another comment today) to have to turn-off all my previous knowledge about a book, author, prequels, etc when considering it for the Newbery, but even worse to have to not consider the book as a whole, as it was conceived and created. Still am unable to be convinced that is possible here.  Or if so, that the incomplete part of the book we are considering is equal to or superior to others on the table here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I admire all the careful arguments for this book, but I still feel I&#8217;m looking at it with one of my senses turned-off, trying to walk on one leg, or otherwise considering it in an incomplete way.  Hard enough (as I wrote in another comment today) to have to turn-off all my previous knowledge about a book, author, prequels, etc when considering it for the Newbery, but even worse to have to not consider the book as a whole, as it was conceived and created. Still am unable to be convinced that is possible here.  Or if so, that the incomplete part of the book we are considering is equal to or superior to others on the table here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: blogs.slj.com @ 2013-05-24 04:37:06 -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  blogs.slj.com/heavymedal/2011/12/30/wonderstruck/feed/ ) in 0.10652 seconds, on May 24th, 2013 at 8:37 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 24th, 2013 at 9:37 am UTC -->