Over at Heavy Medal a month or so back, in the comments, the question was raised about emotional v intellectual engagement.
In a nutshell: is it fair that we tend to preference books with which we engage emotionally?
In that discussion, Mark Flowers (hi, Mark!) of Cross-Referencing said:
None of this is to say that emotional reaction should be taken out of the equation, but if we are really going to evaluate a book, we need to look at the how and the why of those emotional reactions, not just the fact of them.
I’ve been holding that comment in my head. “I feel” is, after all, invalid in Printz conversations if we leave it as an emotional reaction. But the question of the how and why takes that reaction and allows it to become another path by which to examine facets of writing and assess excellence. How does the author engage the reader? Is the emotional engagement or lack thereof in some way a response to the particulars of the writing? And how do we unpack the writing to get at the heart of the how and why? Because that’s where we find meat worth discussing in the context of the Printz.