[...]The Curse of the Serial Book, or Why Series Titles Get No Lovin’ « Someday My Printz Will Come[...]…

A couple of thoughts:

1) The first sentence illuminates the assumptions of the second in interesting ways. Is it really true that every sequel is necessarily “only” one piece of a larger work? Or, conversely (and perhaps more interestingly) is it really true that stand-alone titles are ever truly “complete in and of” themselves? To take extreme examples, what about stand-alones that rely on some previous work, like fairy tale adaptations (I’m looking at you TENDER MORSELS)? But really, aren’t all works of literature really just pieces of an ongoing cultural dialogue – or is that too metaphysical a question to bring to the nitty-gritty of a prize committee?

2) Ignoring my point 1), I still have qualms. A whole raft of people over on Betsy Bird’s site think that Harry Potter 3 is the best children’s novel of all time. It can’t be true that it is the best of all time and yet somehow lesser than other titles that are more “complete.” Also, going back to a line of thought Elizabeth and I were pursuing in a previous post, who says that a work has to be “complete” to be the best (I’m looking at you: Canterbury Tales). In fact, I can even think of a few cases where not finishing a series would have been a better option to keep a great work intact (I’m looking at you: Return of the Jedi).

So, I guess my take home question is: what does it mean to be a complete work anyway? Not sure I have an answer – anyone?

First, while each of us may have an opinion about whether or not sequels should be recognized and, if so, which kind of sequel should be recognized, there is really nothing in the Printz criteria that discourages the committee from recognizing sequels (and indeed the fledgling Printz canon already bears witness to this). It’s important to remember that as much as we all value our own opinions, the Printz criteria trump everything.

Second, the discussion remains too theoretical. On a committee we’re looking at concrete examples. Is DREAMQUAKE better than THE WHITE DARKNESS? Is THE KINGDOM ON THE WAVES better than JELLICOE ROAD? I think you can make a very convincing argument that in both cases the Honor book is superior to the Award winner. (Of course, you can also make the reverse argument just as compellingly.)

While we’ve yet to see a sequel win the Printz Award it has been done elsewhere. The Newbery examples are pretty well known, but are also largely set in the distant past. More recently, however, THE AMBER SPYGLASS won not only the children’s category, but the Book of the Year category, beating out adult books in a variety of categories. A DARKLING PLAIN won the Guardian Prize in the UK and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize here in the US (I was a judge on the latter jury and can tell you that none of us three had read the three previous books in the series). And, finally, while THE ASK AND THE ANSWER fell by the wayside the Carnegie Medal (UK) did recognize the concluding volume, MONSTERS OF MEN.

So there is nothing in the Policies and Procedures to forbid a sequel from winning, and other committees have demonstrated that consensus around sequels is possible, if not frequent. I think it’s probably just a matter of time before we see one recognized with the Printz Award.

Our readers advisory assignment for our monthly Young Adult Services Department meeting this morning was to read and tell about a book with an ambiguous ending. One of our members is planning a display and she wanted some title ideas.

I hadn’t been able to think of any, so I was just going to mention The Book of Blood and Shadow, by Robin Wasserman. I read it last week and have been percolating on it ever since. Yes, yes, it is derivative of, and therefore worth mentioning to fans of, Dan Brown, John Green, Nancy Werlin, and maybe even A. S. Byatt…but I admire how SKILLFULLY derivative it is. Also, it is freshly interesting because of its Prague setting, and the strength of its characterization, and the plot twist (which I did not see coming at all.) Yes, yes, there are some confusing bits, but I also couldn’t put it down. And come to think of it, the ending IS a bit ambiguous and therefore worth chewing on: is it hopeful or depressing?

But last night I read this latest addition to SLJ’s “Someday My Printz Will Come” blog and remembered that The Giver, by Lois Lowry, is one of the all-time best Books with an Ambiguous Ending. Thank you for reminding me of it and for making me want to re-read it!

I hadn’t ever thought about the fact that one reads a book differently when there is definitely a sequel waiting in the wings, but it’s true.

Also…I don’t always care about “what happens next.” I haven’t ever made time to read Messenger, by Lois Lowry, for example. Is this a reflection of the book’s quality and “stand-alone-ness” or only my own life situation and personal baggage? I’m not sure. I’d like to percolate on this a while longer, too.

For our meeting this morning, other YA staff had chosen to read:

As Simple As Snow, by Gregory Galloway
Buried, by Robin MacCready
Chopsticks, by Jessica Anthony & Rodrigo Corral
Dead Girls Don’t Write Letters, by Gail Giles
Timepiece, by Myra McIntyre

Some books had more ambiguous endings than others. Some were more succesfully ambiguous than others. At what point does ambiguity become merely laziness or lack of ability on the author’s part? For me, this is another good question to percolate on in terms of literary quality and the Printz.

I mentioned this topic on Twitter this morning and was delighted when Teri Lesesne (@ProfessorNana) and Carlie Webber (@carliebeth) gave me two other possibilities, respectively:

** Where Things Come Back, by John Corey Whaley (a Printz winner I am ashamed to admit I have not yet read!)
** Living Dead Girl, by Elizabeth Scott

The timeliness for me of this SLJ post was unintended, I know, but I still thank you!