Comments on: Disasters and Hoaxes

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:21:54 +0000

I think that kind of stuff is easy to avoid in MOONBIRD: just skip all the scientist profiles and the appendix. It’s there if you’re interested, but it’s also very easy to skim over.

I think the appendix directly addresses the reader and creates perhaps a shift in tone similar to the epilogue in BOMB, so that might feel more “preachy,” but it’s a hallmark of persuasive writing.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:48:56 +0000

Jonathan I like the idea of thinking about the activist/preachy stuff as a genre convention of this type of book. Though when I think back at a number of the Scientist in the Field Books, which fall under the conservation biology label, I didn’t find the activist stuff as jarring or intrusive as I did in MOONBIRD. I would have to go back and look at something like FROG SCIENTIST again to see how the activism aspect was handled there.

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:27:07 +0000

Oh, *I* personally don’t object to anything portrayed in LITTLE WHITE DUCK. All I’m saying is that when you have intense feelings about something–and it is so little portrayed in children’s literature that it skews an entire experience with a narrow or “misguided” focus–then it can be hard to stomach praise lavished on that portrayal. Another example, I remember listening to KT Horning talk about one of the early picture books portraying lesbian mothers–and it ended with a break-up. So you had this community with a crying need for seeing themselves represented in picture books, but the fact that it ended with a break-up . . . Sure, there’s nothing wrong with that kind of book–it’s just when it’s the *only* book out there. You see this with lots of underrepresented topics. And I think this kind of thinking could extend to nonfiction in this case, a genre that gets so little attention that it might be frustrating for some when only one kind gets elevated for praise.

I agree that it’s important to ask ourselves whether we find a subject excellent or important. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive and a book–like CLAUDETTE COLVIN–can be excellent *and* important. And we recognized it because of it’s excellence; it’s importance is gravy. I don’t think you need to worry about Common Core pervading the committee discussions.

I, personally, didn’t find the activist stuff riveting either, but I recognize this is a work of conversation biology and that as such the goal is to persuade readers that action is necessary in order to preserve species and the environment. I never read it as preachy as much as I read it as a genre convention of conservation biology.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:24:46 +0000

Speaking of unedited thoughts:
Haven’t gotten a hold of LITTLE WHITE DUCK yet but why would anyone worry about children thinking that Mao was a good leader? I’m pretty sure that would be considered an opinion and not at all within the purview of the Newbery criteria.
If an author chooses to write a book (be it nonfiction or fiction) in praise of Mao, no one could really say that it wasn’t accurate, in terms of the criteria at least, anymore they could have claimed inaccuracy in last year’s BREAKING STALIN’S NOSE. I found STALIN’S NOSE to be a piece of anti-soviet propaganda which refused to even consider the other side of the story (i.e. maybe the kid’s dad really was a anti-soviet saboteur working to prevent a successful soviet union) but our feelings about the themes or content shouldn’t matter.
It’s all about the interpretation of said themes or the accuracy of the content. Whether or not Mao or Stalin or Truman or whoever was a good leader isn’t relevant unless of course you can convince the committee that the content or theme is truly didactic.

I think it’s important to consider how if at all the level in which we agree with a theme or message of a book clouds our examination of the book in terms of the criteria.
Does the fact that we do consider Michaux an important American lead us to value NO CRYSTAL STAIR more than say THE GIANT? Did we honor Claudette Colvin because it was a distinguished contribution to children’s literature or because of the value of bringing the subject to light?
There was a (i would say justifiable) blowback against WONDER because it was “guidance counselor fiction”, a book that great message which may have clouded many reader’s judgement of the literary (ie. criteria relevant) qualities.
Is there ever any blow back against “social studies teacher nonfiction”?
I am truly concerned that the committee will choose a nonfiction title which will lead to asinine discussions of the “common core-ness” of the title. I hope that the phrase common core never rears its ugly head within the committee room in January. I’m not opposed to nonfiction titles being honored, but no because of some change in curriculum (or what could be construed that way after the fact).

(oh and to answer Jonathan’s question from above i did enjoy MOONBIRD more than RESCUE, and had no problem with the redundancies. My problem with MOONBIRD was the “preachy” you have the power to save these birds/ change the world stuff towards the end. Again i have this aversion to nonfiction that tries to teach the reader something greater than the content of the story. I was fascinated by the moonbird’s journey and the work of the scientist/trackers but bored by the idea of kid’s doing something to protect them)

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:24:18 +0000

I think we’d all agree that approaches to history can be entirely different but equally valid. I think what makes it hard is when one approach seems to get the lion’s share of attention, as if it were the only worthy treatment of a particular subject. We see this kind of thing a lot with any underrepresented topic, though. Take LITTLE WHITE DUCK, for example. We might worry that a child might think this is what all of China is like–or that Mao Zedong was a good leader.

By: Jim Murphy

Jim Murphy — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:56:29 +0000

Jonathan — Not to beat a topic/thought to death, but the fact that you have to defend narrative nonfiction is informative, especially when it’s a writer who seems troubled by it. I have always (always) said that any topic/individual can be studied, examined, thought about, talked about, written about, etc., etc., in a wide variety of ways, that no one approach is THE APPROACH. We’re all trying to come up with a way to explain history in a way that engages and captivates young readers and, hopefully, leads them to want to know more about the subject in question or about history in general.

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:49:21 +0000

More relevant thoughts from Mark Flowers over at Adults 4 Teens.

http://blogs.slj.com/adult4teen/2012/12/10/adult-nonfiction-for-teens/

By: Jonathan Hunt

Jonathan Hunt — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:00:42 +0000

I don’t think you overreacted, Jim, and as for unedited thoughts–well, I do that all the time here. I daresay that overreactions and unedited thoughts drive the majority of the discussion on this blog.

These sketchy thoughts represent only my first impressions on these titles, but I can be convinced of both flaws and strengths that I have overlooked. I can also assure you that I don’t have a bias against narrative nonfiction. In fact, I’ve found myself somewhat defending narrative nonfiction offline with another author who feels that, by putting this brand of nonfiction on a pedestal, we diminish other kinds of nonfiction, especially in light of the Common Core.

By: Jim Murphy

Jim Murphy — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:14:29 +0000

Jonathan — I’ll try to be as brief as possible, but I just had a large cup of coffee so I might not have the auto-edit in place.
First, clearly I reacted (over-reacted?) to the word bunch. Blogs are meant to be informal, conversational, and I probably wouldn’t have been bothered if delivered in person. But I took the written word as somewhat dismissive. I’ve met and been on panels with a couple of these authors and I know we all sweat bullets doing our research, working out themes, writing and re-writing the text and gathering images and I worried that some of this effort wasn’t being acknowledged in the same way as several of the more favored titles.
Second, it is a bit awkward to respond, though I’m actually pretty easy with criticism in general. Mostly, it’s that any response by a writer is meant to defend their title and I am not at all comfortable with self-promotion. Don’t laugh. It’s true. Also, in an indirect way any defense might be construed as a criticism of other writers (or at least an attempt to minimize their work in some way) and I certainly don’t want to do that. I have real problems with some of the titles discussed, but I also admire the writers and the fact that their books are generating deep felt interest. I read their books to learn from them.
Third, Prejudice. I think was reacting to your comment about the pull of nonfiction that uses fictional techniques to draw in readers. A bit of ancient history figures into this. Years ago, a major review media gave one of my books a really nice review. Glorious even. Though no star was attached. Months later the person who wrote the review came up to me and apologized for the review. I said it was a great review, but she was apologizing for the lack of a star. She told me she had recommended that it be given a star, and that other editors had agreed, but that the person who ran the show had vetoed it. Why? She didn’t like or trust narrative nonfiction. Over the past couple of years I’ve read other opinions that echo this sentiment (you know, the ‘history isn’t a story. It’s…’). I simply don’t want readers to assume the way some of us put together our books is either old-fashioned or easy; there is a great deal of thought and passion that goes into making our nonfiction texts as compelling as the best fiction.
But as I suggested above, I may have over-reacted. I’ll try to self-edit better next time. Have a great day.

By: Elizabeth Moreau

Elizabeth Moreau — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:53:40 +0000

I’m an Alaskan transplant, marrying an Alaskan Native, and after two juvenile fiction Alaskana books this year that fell short (and laughably short) of realism, I loved IMPOSSIBLE RESCUE. I continuously stopped the reading to show pictures and read chunks to my fiance. My only quibble is that every group of Alaskan Natives was identified usually only as “indigenous people” and not by their own tribal identities. That I can perhaps recognize as part of the attitude of that era and mostly forgive. It also helps that I finished the book last night as our night dipped to -25 F. I might be over identifying with the adventurers.

Does that mean it will/should win the Newbery? I don’t know. But I will put it in the hands of as many Anchorage kids as I can.