There are definitely communities in Davidson/Randolph Counties that would fall into the rural/predominantly white category.

That’s also why it’s more challenging to judge books of genuine originality or books in a scarcely populated genre (is a biography in a poetry sequence form that’s less good than Marilyn Nelson’s superb Carver lackluster or merely excellent?); why books in densely populated genres need to achieve more demonstrable excellence to stand out (yet another metatextual fiction based on fairy tales has to work hard to be more than simply more of the same); why read-alikes are some of the most popular and useful forms of reader’s advisory.

THREE TIMES LUCKY does fall in a densely populated genre and therefore does need to achieve more demonstrable excellence. I think it’s almost there, but not quite. I probably sound more negative about this book on the other thread than I really am.

Cell Phones: It’s really hard for me to swallow the idea of no cell phone coverage . . . but, then, when I found sections of Modesto which didn’t have sidewalks but rather this no man’s land of dirt between the yard and the street–well, I thought I had stumbled into a third world country the first time I saw it . . . so, okay, I’ll buy it. However, it definitely does give it a so-backwards-it’s-historical-fiction vibe. And that would add a *fourth* Newbery cliche to the pile.

Contribution: I’d been thinking about this issue before Wendy brought it up because I do think in order to say something is a contribution to children’s literature you have to have a fairly good idea of children’s literature to recognize whether something is a contribution to it or not. I’m not sure that I can say THREE TIMES LUCKY is a contribution in this sense. I mean there are an awful lot of Newbery books with those cliches (not to mention the small handful every year that people insist are contenders).

I think we’re always taken with things that are “new” and “different” (even if they are only new and different to us). I do think that gives them an edge (not that any committee would necessarily acknowledge that in discussion), but they also have to be excellent. I’m thinking GOOD MASTERS! SWEET LADIES! New and different? Yes. Excellent? Yes.

Mystery: What Mark and Wendy said. Does everything click into place? In other words, can the reader logically figure out the mystery from the clues? Or does she have to bide her time passively until the author sees fit to dispense the information at the conclusion? It struck me as more of the latter, but I could be wrong. Like I said, I’d need to reread.