Follow This Blog: RSS feed
Heavy Medal: A Mock Newbery Blog
Inside Heavy Medal

Heavy Medal Mock Newbery Fifteen – 3rd Ballot Results

15After a second round of discussion with additional clarification and examples from the books, our Heavy Medal Mock Newbery Fifteen cast their secret votes again.

At this point, 10 out of the original 18 titles received votes.  Many members have shifted their choices so that we could potentially have a winner.

Sharon, Steven, and I thank all of our hard-working (over the weekend, both on Heavy Medal and via email re logistics) Mock Newbery Fifteen!

Here is result for our 3rd ballot:

1st Place 2nd Place 3rd Place Total Points
All’s Faire in Middle School 1 2
Beyond the Bright Sea 1 1 5
First Rule of Punk 1 1 5 17
Her Right Foot 1 2
I’m Just No Good at Rhyming 9 2 1 44
Princess Cora and the Crocodile 2 1 2 15
Real Friends 1 2
Vincent and Theo 1 1 5
War I Finally Won 3 7 33
Wishtree 2 2 10

 

I’m Just No Good at Rhyming has received more than the needed 8 1st Place Votes.

It also scores 44 total points, 11 points over the next highest – War I Finally Won, with 33 points, more than the necessary 8-point spread.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Congratulations to Chris Harris for winning the 2018 Heavy Medal Mock Newbery Fifteen Medal for I’m Just No Good at Rhyming And Other Nonsense for Mischievous Kids and Immature Grown-Ups.

Committee members, please discuss and choose honor titles.  We welcome general Heavy Medal readers to chime in as well!

Share
Roxanne Hsu Feldman About Roxanne Hsu Feldman

Roxanne Hsu Feldman is the Middle School (4th to 8th grade) Librarian at the Dalton School in New York City. She served on the 2002 and 2013 Newbery Committees. Roxanne was also a member of 2008-2009 Notable Books for Children, 2015 Best Fiction for Young Adults, and the 2017 Odyssey Award Committees. In 2016 Roxanne was one of the three judges for the Boston Globe-Horn Book Awards. You can reach her at at roxannefeldman@gmail.com.

Comments

  1. Well done, gang!

    *shoves down slight disappointment*

    I’m good with having just one honor: THE WAR I FINALLY (almost) WON

    or three: PRINCESS CORA, & FIRST RULE OF PUNK.

    And listen the case for others.

    • Adrian Zeck says:

      I think we should vote for the honor(s). I’d imagine that is what happens in the official Committee and revote is what people did on the Mock Printz.
      So cut down the contenders and have a last vote for today. Lets say before 7pm EST to give us East Coasters a break on the response time.

  2. The War I Finally Won deserves to be an honor book with that kind of point spread. We can add more or vote again, but that book should be honored as well.

  3. To the other fourteen. This has been a delight. You are all so smart and passionate, it has been a pleasure to romp among you. Sharon, Steven and especially Roxanne, (who I know had more fun than anyone here, if only because she had access to the secrets first) thank you for this great year. Your presentation all season has been not only accessible, but reasoned and intelligent. Heavy Medal has always been my favorite water-cooler for discussion.

  4. *chuckle* I always love being the person who tallies the votes/points so I got to know where the Committee is before everyone else. There usually are 2 or 3 vote counters — just to make sure that no mistakes are made.

  5. I’m good with one Honor for The War I Finally Won. I don’t feel comfortable supporting the other two at this point because of abandoning my personal favorites early on and throwing my weight behind one of the contenders. Not sure what the process should be for Honors, but TWIFW would make a fine lone Honor in my opinion.

  6. I agree with DaNae….. I am fine with one honor book— The War I Finally Won. I would also be ok with three if that meant including Princess Cora and Punk. Those are the four—including Rhyming– with the mist points and the four that received first place votes.

  7. So whatever the other 14 decide about honors is good with me. One or three…. we will see.

  8. That was fun! (Even though you’re all wrong. 😀) Definitely War for honor but then also I think we should also vote again or whatever for the honors. Because for me definitely Cora but definitely not Punk. And things people really loved but gave up on like Vincent and Theo should be considered. I still don’t love it, but other people loved it so much I’d be happy for it to get an honor.

  9. And, in conclusion, kudos to Roxanne for being an incredible guide during this journey. And to my fellow committee members, it has been an honor and a privilege to have collaborated with you. Thank you!

  10. Katrina…. thanks for the mention of Vincent and Theo. I still like that book a lot regardless of the results.

  11. I can certainly see that the War I Finally Won was significantly ahead of the next two, but I’d also love us to consider them, especially as The First Rule of Punk is the only one among them with an ownvoice/diversity lens. Given the passionate comments, it be great to see all three as honors.

  12. Jenn Potter says:

    I had to wait to reread Rhyming this morning, both to myself and a few poems to some of my students before I felt comfortable voting. But I am happy with the result.

    I would love to see TWIFW as an honor book as well as Punk, Cora, and V&T. But I would also love to offer up Beyond the Bright Sea as an honor book. While I think the plot and setting are great it is the character development that I think really brings this book into the “distinguished” category. Wolk takes what could feel like a band of misfit toys cast and brings them to a place where you are rooting for them to become the family that you can just imagine them to be.

    I’m not sure what the official rules are for choosing honor books but I would like to propose that we have one round of voting and pick the tops from there. Perhaps everyone votes for their top 3 or 5?

    It was a pleasure chatting with all of you. I loved reading your different perspectives and learned a lot about the committee process. Thank you!

  13. By including Cora & Punk, you will also have a slate of diverse age ranges and formats, too.

    • Adrian Zeck says:

      Good point.
      Is that somethings that is considered once it comes down to Honor voting?
      Would they only include titles that have secured at least one first place vote for the Honors vote?

      • Once the winner is chosen, the ballots don’t need to be part of the honor title process. It could be a completely different procedure. I’d love for Steven to comment once his librarian / story hour duties are done today or tomorrow.

  14. SAMUEL LEOPOLD says:

    I am sold….three honors make the most sense—-WAR/CORA/PUNK.

  15. Jennifer Hartley says:

    I can’t say I’m not a bit disappointed. But I can probably deal with it. I can always grumble in private.

    I am okay either way, voting or going with the top three as honors, since I feel all three are very worthy of an honor.

  16. Leonard Kim says:

    The Manual allows the Committee to decide the method for choosing Honors. Personally I agree with Cherylynn and Katrina. I think we should ballot for Honors, if only because voting is fun. But because I think there’s a good chance that an Honors ballot would not provide clarity (it might look a lot like the first ballot), I think we should reserve the right to go back and just Honor THE WAR I FINALLY WON. Maybe it would make sense to guarantee WAR an Honor and remove it from the Honors ballot?

  17. I think that’s a good idea. Put War as definitely and then vote again for the rest.

  18. Based on the very first vote I think this is a good choice for this group. It was one of my top picks for the year. I’m pleased to see it get some love. Nice job everyone! I’d love to ballot again for the honor books because I know there were many favorites we didn’t discuss as fully while we were trying to pick a top choice.

  19. Steven Engelfried Steven Engelfried says:

    Typically at this point the Committee would discuss how to choose Honors, then choose them.

    We could go straight from the third ballot results and select. From comments, though, there seems to be a split between 1 Honor and 3 Honors. So if we chose that process, we would discuss between those two options, and if there’s no consensus, do a vote.

    Or we could do a new vote for Honors, taking the winner off of the ballot and all that received no votes on the 3rd ballot. Leonard suggests an interesting and logical variation of this: take THE WAR I FINALLY WON off the ballot and name it an Honor, then vote among the remainders for any others.

    So how about getting some feedback on the two options above from the HM15. Would you like to go straight off the ballot? Or do a separate Honors vote. If we decide on straight off the ballot, we’ll then have a separate 1 book vs. 3 books discussion.

    I’ll stay quiet for the discussion, but if I was Chair I would remind members that Honor titles “shall be books that are also truly distinguished.” So we still need to be thinking of the quality of each book, and avoid the very tempting practical considerations, which could include: “the more Honor Books the better,” or “let’s create a good balance of age levels/formats/genres…” or “it would be great if this author/genre/format were honored….”

    • I vote for Leonard’s system.

    • I vote to remove WAR (and name it an Honor) and revote for the others.

    • Cherylynn says:

      If we vote again, how is it done. Do we do weighted voting and how many do we vote for?

      • Leonard Kim says:

        I wonder if it might make sense to do “approval”-style voting–vote for as many as you want, all equally weighted. But I am OK with any system.

      • Most likely it will not be a weighted voting process. Perhaps 1 or 2 top choices. We do want a substantial number of votes for each title honored, though.

    • I’d like to keep the option of voting for the ONE or the THREE. So for instance we could have a ballot with three options:

      #1: TWIFW as the only Honor
      #2: WAR/PUNK/CORA as three honors
      #3 Add to honors with write in.

      • Perhaps with any write-in addition needing a certain number of consensus to be added. I worry that if we all start throwing up five honors the list will become unwieldy.

    • Adrian Zeck says:

      I think another vote would be the best way.
      Take the top choices in a method similar to the Medal winner.

  20. Steven, at this point, I think you as the de facto chair, could make a decision on HOW to determine Honor titles and then the members will vote/come to consensus. Please have the decision soon :)

  21. Steven Engelfried Steven Engelfried says:

    Some good arguments for different options, pretty evenly spread. As de facto chair I’ve decided that we’ll use the Final Ballot as the basis for our Honor books. There was also support for a separate Honor vote, but we do have some clear point breaks in that Final Ballot and this will be quicker too, with only one vote. So the decision before the HM15 now is to choose one of the two Honor options below. Vote in the comments below. As soon as we get to 8 votes for one we’ll call the vote:

    1. One Honor Book: THE WAR I FINALLY WON (33 points)

    2. Three Honor Books: THE WAR I FINALLY WON (33); FIRST RULE OF PUNK (17); and PRINCESS CORA AND THE CROCODILE (15)

    • Leonard Kim says:

      I vote for One Honor Book.

    • Adrian Zeck says:

      Option #2: Three Honor Books

    • I guess three, although I think there are things with more support than Punk, so I don’t know if it’s the most accurate 3.

      • But for next year, we should have a better system or at least clarity ahead of time because doing it this way rewards the people who stuck with voting an outlier for first place and punishes the people (ie, the Vincent and Theo fans) that gave up their favorites to work towards consensus.

      • I agree with Katrina. There were a couple of strong contenders that could have gotten some Honor love that we let go in favor of a consensus winner.

      • It doesn’t work that way. You don’t discuss Honors until you have a winner. It is only AFTER the ballots give you a winner that you turn to Honors and decide how you want to proceed. So you can’t decide before starting how to do the Honors.

      • This is how it really works. Not about punishment but consensus.

      • But some people appeared to be under the impression that we were definitely going to completely reballot for the Honors. I am not saying that this was “wrong” but it would be helpful to know ahead of time that might not actually happen. When people asked, we were told to focus on choosing a winner. I’m happy with this result but it would have affected my vote in the 3rd round if I’d known we pull use those results to pick the honor books.

      • Leonard Kim says:

        I think for an inaugural attempt at simulating the Newbery process in a blog format, this went extremely well. The Newbery Manual does say under “Order of Business” page 36 that prior to prior to discussion, the committee should review the procedure for Honors. That might be something to consider for next year, prior to the first ballot. I admit I am guilty of sowing confusion about this during the initial discussion for which I apologize!

        It’s interesting in the Manual (p.34) that committee members are told they have the option of bringing “reviews of books under consideration” to the meeting. I recall one former committee member saying that their committee was discouraged from looking at reviews, but it’s right there! They are also told to bring in “biographical information on authors represented on discussion list” – that’s interesting too and I wonder what the reason is. (The Manual implies it’s for the initial introduction of the book during discussion.)

      • Leonard, I believe the reason for bringing “biographical information” is so that when the Committee writes the blurbs or press releases there is ready info on hand — not to judge the books by their creators.

      • Yes, as Kari says, we were told we would reballot (and to not worry how these votes would affect the Honors) but then didn’t. I wondered if someone would comment on my reward and punishment thing, but I meant it in a behavioral psychology way, not a cosmic reward way. With that behavioral reward setup, I think it will be harder to reach consensus next time, because there will be more incentive for people to be stubborn about their favorites. And I don’t think doing it this way led to the Honors that the group overall actually felt were the most distinguished, so it’s also problematic in terms of fairness to the books (rather than the people) and just accuracy.

  22. Monica Edinger says:

    I vote for three honor books.

  23. I vote for three honor books. Option two.

  24. Three

  25. I vote option 2, one Honor book.

  26. Ack! I messed that up!

    Option 1: One Honor Book.

  27. Jennifer Hartley says:

    I vote for option 2: Three Honor books.

  28. I vote for option 2: 3 honor books.

  29. I’ll vote for three honor books.

  30. I vote for the three as honor books.

  31. sam leopold says:

    Note to Katrina….my students and I appreciate your comment.

  32. Leonard Kim says:

    While I appreciate the sentiment, the Newbery Manual doesn’t allow some of the proposed reforms, and we more or less did it the right way, though we may have been a little disorganized about it.

    From p.37, it’s pretty clear that the Committee doesn’t decide ahead of time how Honors determination will work. Immediately after the final ballot, only then does the Committee decide first, “whether honor books will be named”, then “whether the committee wishes to choose as honor books the next highest books on the original winning ballot or to ballot again.” (By the way it does specify that the same voting system as the award winner should be used, so our ideas about weighted/unweighted and how many to vote for are moot.) And finally, how many Honor books to vote for.

    • Leonard Kim says:

      So I’d say the only thing we could’ve done differently was formally vote on whether to re-ballot or not. Realistically that’d add at least another day to the whole process for us, so I can understand the rationale for just using the winning ballot in this setting.

      • Steven Engelfried Steven Engelfried says:

        By my count, we now have nine people in favor of going with 3 Honor Books based on the final ballot. So the official result of the Heavy Medal 15 Newbery is:

        Medal: I’M JUST NO GOOD AT RHYMING
        Honor: THE WAR I FINALLY WON
        Honor: THE FIRST RULE OF PUNK
        Honor: PRINCESS CORA AND THE CROCODILE

  33. Steven Engelfried Steven Engelfried says:

    If this was the real committee, and we went through three ballots, it would probably be about 2 or 3 on Sunday morning about now, after starting early Saturday. We would have a copy of each book, and seals to put on them. So we’d pull the chosen books and be the first to attach the seals! Pretty cool moment. There’s still one more thing left to do, though. The committee must prepare a short description about each chosen book which will be used as the awards are announced on Monday morning. Not as easy as it sounds. Then members have to go through the rest of Sunday keeping a very big secret. I kind of liked that part too….

  34. I didn’t know you actually put the seals on—how fun!

  35. Brenda Martin says:

    I’m so glad that Heavy Medal did this! It’s a really excellent look inside how the process works and how titles can gain traction, lose traction, and how the slate can end up with unexpected winners and honor books. It also shows very clearly that the make up of the committee is very much the deciding factor of all deciding factors! What was nominated and by whom and then how the votes shifted. It’s all fascinating, and whenever a title is selected and there are internal or external questions, boos, cheers, etc. now I hope all those that followed this exercise can be more informed and less judgmental.

    • Dear Brenda, so glad that you found our “experiment” working out for you, as a reader, and not part of the Mock Newbery Fifteen team. We definitely worried that perhaps the past few days feel a bit exclusive. Someone on the “Committee” suggested that we set up some Peanut Gallery mechanism for others to comment and cheer (or boo! haha)

      • I also enjoyed this as an observer, like having a window into the process. I really hope you do it this way again next year. I would have loved to participate, but I’m on a state committee I had to read other books for, so I did not have time to read the whole list. I like the Peanut Gallery idea. It would have been fun to be able to comment without interfering with the actual committee. There were parts of the discussion where I was practically tearing my hair out wanting to respond, but then a committee member would usually chime in and express exactly what I was thinking!

  36. This was a great experience for me. I think things went very well. It was fun being on the inside and going through the emotional choices and strategies. At the beginning, I never thought I would forsake my favorite book for the sake of consensus….. but the arguments for certain titles persuaded me more than I thought they would. This has been an eye opener for me as far as what happens in the actual committee. Thanks for letting me participate.

    • I thoroughly enjoyed this as well. Was pretty glued to my computer/phone all weekend… I too, would think we need to brainstorm a way for others to continue to involve themsevles, instead of just sit back and watch us. I’d love to be a part of this again next year but would obviously want to spread the wealth too and allow for others who weren’t part of the process to join.

      It would be interesting to see what 30 people (two groups of 15) would accomplish and how the conversations would vary.

  37. Now…. I still have one question….. what are some titles to start reading for the 2019 award?

    • Jennifer Hartley says:

      The ones I’ve heard about already are BETTY BEFORE X, THE JOURNEY OF LITTLE CHARLIE, CAN I TOUCH YOUR HAIR?, ESCAPE FROM ALEPPO, MARTIN RISING, WINTERHOUSE, THE TRUTH AS TOLD BY MARTIN BUTTLE, THE HAZEL WOOD, THE PROBLIM CHILDREN, and THE PARKER INHERITANCE. I’m especially excited about the last one, since I have really enjoyed Varian Johnson’s books in the past and I don’t think he has gotten a lot of attention.

    • Heavy Medal always used to conclude with a post looking forward to potential titles for the upcoming year… Hopefully Sharon, Roxanne, and Steven will have some ideas for us all too!

      • Steven Engelfried Steven Engelfried says:

        Yes, we’ll have a post about 2018 titles (for the 2019 Medal) next week….the last post of the season, I think.

  38. Weekend before last, I finished our face-to-face, in-the-same-room-with, Mock. Some I spend time with on a weekly basis and some I only see once a year surrounded me, all were very dear. We’d come to a consensus quickly. I think that may have had to do with the fact that a good percentage of us are also in the same book group. I think it was CheryLnn who said, there is value in knowing opinions from a broad geographical area.

    This experience has been just as cherished and so very different. Again, I got to interact with people, mostly known through HM or Goodreads, that I’d enjoyed “spending time” with for years, over the books we read. Also, many new faces – but not their faces. So many great opinions, so many thoughtful arguments. And, most surprising to me, sooooo much strategizing. I found myself poking at books I loved, just to raise the value of the book I REALLY loved (I’m sure I did it so subtly no one could see through what I was doing). It was like kicking the ankles of some of your children, to make sure your favorite child crossed the finish line first. (Not, as a mother of four, that I have favorite children.)

    As fun and exciting as this was, I wouldn’t want to compare our experience too closely with what the actual committee puts into it. They know from the first day of the year they are responsible to see as many eligible books as possible. They take notes, they reread, and reread. Even though I certainly read all eighteen titles, some were so long ago, and didn’t make enough of a lasting impression for me to talk responsibly about – pro or con. I trust the committee to do much better by all the titles in their discussions.

    Again, I am so honored to have been included in this group. Leonard and Sam, I’m sorry about VINCENT & THEO. I know you ran into a brick wall with some of us. I hope it gets all the love it deserves under YALSA, and if ALSC recognizes it, I will look long and hard at my age bias.

    This coming March I will be on the Ballot for the 2020 Sibert committee. I have no idea what my chances of making the committee are, but this experience has helped me see the rewards and rigor that goes into committee service. I know we all here understand the value raising the profile of excellence, and to have the best of books available for children.

  39. Leonard,

    I don’t see anything on page 36 of the Manual about determining anything about Honor books before the discussion starts. Can you provide a quote? I seem to be missing it. All I see is a process for deciding about honors (on page 37) once the winner has been decided.

  40. Leonard Kim says:

    Monica, it’s under “Order of Business” then “3. Procedural decisions” then 4th bullet point: “Reminder of the procedures for naming honor books, if any.”

    • Ah, a reminder. Not a discussion.

      • Leonard Kim says:

        Right sorry if I wasn’t clear. I commented twice on this, once to say the Manual makes clear the Committee doesn’t decide how Honors will be determined until after selecting the Medal (p.37) and the committee could be reminded of that (p.36), but I used the phrase “review the procedure” which I see can be interpreted to mean decide the procedure. Sorry!

  41. By the way, those of us who have served on Newbery and Caldecott often say “the process works.” I hope those who participated here see how it does. I found it amazing when on the committee — it helps to bring you to consensus in a remarkable way. Those of you who commented on strategizing and such. Those who gave up favorites. All of it is to work toward a final book we can all feel satisfied is worthy of the medal. Trust the process! Remember this next Monday when we learn of the real committee’s choices.

    • I agree. I also think that we need to remember how OUR Fifteen functioned still quite differently from the Real committee — we had almost a week, with members in different time zones, with religious observant restrictions, limited internet accesses, etc., to “discuss” online. We also have to contend with somewhat unwieldy nesting comment features of a blog. In a real committee, the discussion will be more book-by-book, and then contrast/compare in an orderly fashion.

      Also the process of picking the honor is always a difficult one. I am actually somewhat fuzzy about whether books could be brought back to the table or not when considering honor titles. My feeling is, if only a handful of members have strong feelings about a particular title, even if that title is brought back in the final balloting/discussing of honor titles, it still might not receive the necessary support to become an honor book. Just a hunch.

      • Sharon McKellar Sharon McKellar says:

        If my memory serves, once a book is off the table (off the ballot), it’s no longer under consideration and can’t be discussed for honors.

    • Well, that’s easier to say when you agree with the outcome! 😀 I just wish the time and mechanics had allowed us to follow the process the rest of the way and vote on whether to reballot. So if that’s not going to be possible in general, we should be clear about that ahead of time. It wouldn’t have changed my votes, but I would have talked about Wishtree more to get it Honors support. (Which is why the real system seems better, so you can focus on the medal and then move onto talking about the honors rather than getting distracted.)

      Roxanne, I’m sure that’s true, but in this system I think we also wound up with Honors that only a few people felt strongly about and passed over books that would have had more general support.

      • I think the solution, as you say Katrina, is just to be very clear up front how the Honors will be decided. I think it makes sense that they come from the final ballot, since some consensus is building, but then everyone needs to understand that up front so they don’t totally give up on their favorites through the discussion process (like I did with HELLO UNIVERSE!)

  42. Mr. H and Katrina, I really think you have to let go of strategizing for honors at the get-go. My chair, Nina Lindsay, reminded us more than once to be both fierce with what we loved and equally flexible at giving up what we loved. (I wish I could recall exactly what she said, but that was the gist of it.) You have to think broadly and be open to others in order to get to consensus. Trying to game the honors doesn’t strike me as a useful strategy. But that is me — Jonathan always talked of books being good honors so maybe he was able to do that from the start. I never could figure out how. The process is so intense and you have to stay so focused on attending to everything in terms of the medal. Whether anything is going to be an honor just isn’t in play during the intensity of the discussion. At least so I found it.

    • My point was more that I didn’t strategize about Honors. 🙂 I get what you’re saying, but that approach seems like it only works if you then really discuss the honors afterwards. But I could also see how the opposite approach could work, like deciding on a top 5 that will all get honors and then picking the winner amongst those. Which I suppose is what a lot of awards do by naming a shortlist. Which is a different system, but I think that’s how I come up with my own list, since you can think a number of books are distinguished and deserve honors even if you have one that you think is the most distinguished.

      • You definitely have a quasi short list of your own of the seven nominations you have made. I certainly went into our deliberations with those (though at least one was strategic:). And you do know going in all the nominations — so if one book got a lot you have a sense of that going in. Helps in preparations. You also know who nominated what and, to some degree, their commitment to these (based on their justifications). So, as Roxanne pointed out above, this here did not mimic the real committee process that much because of so many things, but it did so enough for you all to strategize, ditch favorites, etc in a way I bet you (that is the 15) didn’t know you could do. At least I sure didn’t before I was on the committee. I’m still amazed how strategic I could be — had no idea that was in my temperament.

  43. One more thing to say about OUR process — since we did not organize our discussion after the results of the 1st and 2nd ballot the same way that a real committee would: which is, giving EVERY book ample and equal time (as much as possible) for discussion — going down the list, and inviting every member to speak up if they have something to add. So the “I never got to add more positive points about this and that book” situation would have been minimized. That might have also altered some of the courses we took.

    This definitely shows why a highly codified process is necessary!

  44. Cherylynn says:

    I felt that some of the books did not get the support that they could have because we had a few people who started the discussion with strong support for a few really good books. Some of the others we never heard anyone talk about why they voted for them. I know there was support for the four books that we honored from beginning to end, but I wonder about those who were a little more quietly supported. I know that there were several books on the list that were not my first choice that I was pretty sure I could be talked into voting for as a winner. We just never discussed or only talked about for a short time.

  45. Leonard Kim says:

    Roxanne and Cheryl Lynn, wouldn’t you say though that each book did get equal and ample time because each book got its own daily post in the runup to the first vote? I certainly felt by the time we did the first ballot, much of what I and others had to say in support of a book was already said in the post (really two posts) dedicated to it, and the post-ballot discussion was already with the focus of getting to consensus, not initial arguments.

  46. Cherylynn says:

    I just keep seeing people who want to defend things like Beyond the Bright Sea for an honor and yet we never really discussed it among the 15 of us.

    • Steven Engelfried Steven Engelfried says:

      Another factor is that the list of 18 for the Heavy Medal 15 was not created by those 15. It’s the list Roxanne, Sharon, and I put together earlier. In the real Committee, every book on the table will have been nominated by a member, and typically introduced at the table by someone who nominated it. We weren’t able to quite duplicate that this year.

  47. It was a fun process and I appreciate being able to participate! There are a lot of great books this year. I imagine at least some of the books that were championed here will get some love on Monday, and it will be delightful to think of all your discussions and fine points as we hear the winners. I’m so excited for Monday!

  48. I enjoyed seeing this process through all of you so much.
    Excited for Monday.

Leave a Reply to Cherylynn Cancel reply

*