Nina's Newbery

Belatedly

2009-10-06T09:18:00.001-07:00

Redirecting to the newest version of this blog, Heavy Medal.

Raising my arm from the grave....

2007-07-13T16:03:00.001-07:00

...to direct you all to http://sharonsnewbery.blogspot.com/! Thank you Sharon, for adopting my Mock Newbery group. Head on over--

"This dusty old dust is a-gettin' my home..."

2007-01-25T12:35:00.000-08:00

And here are the results, folks. I'm rather pleased with them myself; not just because I trust the committee to have picked good ones...but because they put to rest any rumor that I can predict the awards. Yes, last year my Mock picked the winner, and it's honors all received other medals. But this year, not one of the Newbery winners was on our discussion list. Only two were even considered.

There's great blogging activity over these awards right now, so much so that I'm just going to let you seek it out yourself. This of course goes against the bloggers code of honor, but I find, after this year-long experiment, that I'm actually not a blogger.

That's not to say I haven't enjoyed the experiment. It succeeded in all three of it's goals: 1) made me get organized for my Mock Newbery; 2) Helped spread the word about it, dramatically increasing turnout; 3) Let me prove to myself that I'm capable of blogging.

However, I find that I don't enjoy the pressure of feeling like it's been too long since I posted. While I enjoy following blog threads and scandals with tremendous glee, I don't enjoy feeling like I have to keep up with them, or feel the duty of reporting on them. I am one of those wallflowers who will suddenly barge into a discussion, cutting people off, and then leave when I get tired and go face a wall somewhere and let my mind happily wander with itself. This does not a blogger make.

And so this is my last post. I will leave the blog up, as a happy side-effect has been to let me document some of the issues surrounding award procedures, and many of you who have spoken to me in person (thank you!) have mentioned you hope to be able to refer to it. In a year, who knows, maybe it will be time to crack it open once more. By then, blogging may have become something else entirely.

Now to my magazine, and lunch.

Cheers--

The penultimate post

2007-01-16T10:13:00.000-08:00

For the live webcast of the awards announcements, click here at 7:45 am, PST, Monday January 22nd.

The text press release will be posted here that morning at 10am PST.

I'm signing off for a week to head out there (Seattle) myself shortly. You'll hear from me one more time after the annoucements...

More Mock Winners

2007-01-16T10:06:00.000-08:00

Allen County--Clementine by Sara Pennypacker
BCCLS--Here Lies the Librarian by Richard Peck

(Anderson's Bookshop is having their's as we speak...and I may not post again before the actual announcement, so make sure to check the link!)

The juicy part

2007-01-10T13:41:00.000-08:00

Alright. If this were the real committee, you'd have heard our results, and brief statements about our winners. What you wouldn't hear is exactly how we arrived at those results. The fun of participating in a Mock Newbery is to experience that process. I'll tell you some tidbits about how it went--stuff you'll never hear from a Newbery committee.

We had four hours, nineteen people, and nine books. I'd budgeted two hours for dicussion, and went 2-1/2...that allowed 10-15 minutes for most titles, and a couple took us 20. Even so, I had to cut us off sometimes when we were really just about to get into it. (No, there were no fist-fights, hair pulling, or even cookie hurling. Jane's cookies were just too good to use as projectiles, and it really was a well-behaved and well-prepared group).

We took a first ballot. Following committee procedures, we each completed an anonymous ballot selected a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice. Up to the whiteboard: each 1st place vote got a title 4 points, each 2nd place vote got 3 points, and each 3rd place vote got 2. In the actual committee of fifteen people, the winning title needs 8 first place votes, and an 8 point spread in total points above the next title down the list. With nineteen votes, we decided we'd need 10 first-place votes and a 10 point spread.

The first ballot wasn't conclusive. There were two that pretty strong at the top...and four spread out through the middle that had each gotten at least 1 first-pace vote. There were three titles that received very few votes, and no first-place votes. We all agreed to remove those three from the table. We'd narrowed our field to six titles.

Back to the table. We took about 20 minutes more in discussion of the six remaining titles. Following committee procedures, you're not allowed to bring up any points that have been brought up previously. You're really looking to persuade people for or against certain titles at this point...but you don't know exactly who you have to persuade. You start even more ferociously and minutely measuring each book against the other.

We took a second vote. ACK! The same two titles still at the top. At this point Drowned Maidens Hair had the 10 point spread, but with fewer first place votes than it'd had before, and the other title had one more first place vote, though still not 10, as many first place votes were still dedicated to other titles lower on the list. Very awkward. Still, there were two titles that could clearly be taken off the table in this round, and with agreement from the table, off they came. We were left with 4, and no time.

Now, when you're not on the committee, getting home in time for dinner is still more important than achieving a clear consensus. If this had been the real committee, we'd have had to go back to discussion once more. The idea now would have been to persuade those who had cast first place votes for books lower down the list to re-cast their lot with one of the two forerunners. We, however, decided to take the shortcut, and just took a straw-poll, show of hands: between the two fore-runners, which should the winner be?

Now the vote was clear: Drowned Maiden's Hair had the majority it needed to make it clearly the committee's choice. It had almost 2/3 of the hands in the straw poll, and it had the 10 point spread. (As an interesting aside: in the second ballot, it received 18 votes: so all but 1 of us picked it as either our 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice. No other title had so many overall votes).

How about honor books? Some committees might have chosen only one honor in this case: the clear second-place title, as it still stood well above the other two. However, since all these had strong votes, and in the spirit of Mock-Newberyness, we decided to call all three our "also clearly distinguished" honor books.

(Which was the second-place one? That I won't tell. Our agreement was that we want those three to stand together on the Mock-podium.)

So, is that what it's really like on the committee? Well...no and yes. The whole points thing is how it's done...but it's taken a lot more seriously than I've portrayed it here. Also, the field for voting is MUCH larger, so the points have more impact in making some titles rise above others. In a real voting process, you'd try not to narrow down the field as far as I did: it's better if discussion and re-balloting can make the votes rise on their own...and you want a large enough field at the end from which to thoughtfully select honor books. It's a mechanised process to come to something called "consensus," and it somehow magically works. Believe me, at the end of a year of reading hundreds of books, these votes aren't cast or changed casually, and the way the numbers are forced to line up really requires that the group has reached some kind of alignment in thinking. Whether one ballot decides it, or several--the ultimate result always feels right.

other Mock winners...

2007-01-10T13:37:00.000-08:00

Northport-East Northport chose Gossamer. Rhode Island chose The Miraculous Journal of Edward Tulane. The results are starting to come in...keeping checking those side-bar links for other Mock results, or post a comment with yours here.

And the winner is....

2007-01-08T08:53:00.000-08:00

Nineteen of us duked it out yesterday afternoon, but the results were conclusive:

Winner
A Drowned Maiden's Hair

Honor Books (in alphabetical order)
Alabama Moon
The King of Attolia
A True and Faithful Narrative

When the real committee finishes, they then sit around and write a press release telling the world exactly what is so distinguished about these titles. Instead, I'll invite those who participated to add comments here.

Award season buzz

2007-01-05T10:08:00.001-08:00

A colleague pointed out to me that my posting on KofA is prominently displayed on Megan Whalen Turner's website...happily, appropriately attributed.

There's always been a word-of-mouth award buzz this time of year in the children's literature community. As that buzz happens more and more online, in such an easily copy-and-pasteable world, the buzz can turn into a slither... of worms escaping their can.

Here's parts of my reply to my colleague, in response to whether or not I'd be doing this next year, when I'm chairing the 2008 Newbery committee:

I won't do this myself next year, but I'm hoping a certain colleague of mine will take it over. The confidentiality issue [see p.13 in the manual] is an interesting one, with several levels.

All actual committee discussions, lists, and voting are confidential forever. There are a couple of purposes to this: mainly, so that committee members are free to say whatever they need to in discussion. Secondly, so that the award winning books "stand" as a committee consensus, without a lot of the second-guessing-gossip that you see in other awards (remember Roger's post?).

Individual committee members, though, HAVE to be able to always state their individual opinions about books, exactly so that they CAN discuss books throughout the year and form well-thought justifications. Also, it's just silly to expect someone not to express an opinion for a year.

As an example: I was on the 2004 committee that chose Tale of Despereaux as the winner and An American Plague and Olive's Ocean as honor books. I can tell you what I appreciate about these books, and what the committee as a whole appreciated about them. I can also tell you what other books I personally appreciated that year...but not what the committee thought about other books that year. That year, I continued to review titles in SLJ that carried the tag "Nina Lindsay, Oakland Public Library"....and some people knew that I was on the Newbery, but I didn't advertise it.

It is wise to consider what the world at large (and especially the blog-savvy children's lit world) will perceive. In 2003, since I wasn't chair of the committee, I figured it was fine to run my Mock Newbery (and committee procedures do encourage this)...and someone posted my listserv announcement of the winners of our discussion on amazon's listmania as something like "Nina Lindsay's Newbery picks." Now, at least they didn't claim that these were real Newbery picks. One year, in fact, someone forged a list of "This year's Newbery winners" on listmania, before the actual announcement, signing in with the chair's name and committee affiliation!

So now consider the posting of my comment on Turner's website. (I very purposefully called these "MockNominations" as one word so they would get repeated as such. I've also very purposefully not mentioned, until now, on this blog that I'm chairing next year's committee, or even included my last name or library affiliation. But that didn't fool anyone.) I wouldn't want this to happen in a year I was on the committee...even though it doesn't breach confidentially explicitly, it could be misinterpreted. I ESPECIALLY don't want this happening when I'm chairing the committee, as the chair's main job is to facilitate open and productive discussion.

All this in part to point out why I'll be sunseting this blog after the announcements of the actual award later this month. Stay tuned!

MockNomination for Clue of the Linoleum Lederhosen

2007-01-02T11:42:00.000-08:00

Humor is perhaps the most personally-appreciated of any genre. This book, however, stands out in its “interpretation of theme or concept.” It is a parody of many threads and layers, each one drawn beyond the breaking point—yet they don’t break. Every word is choice, even when that word is “AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRHHHHHHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAA- RRRRRRRRRRR” in 42 point type. The barest of narratives is in itself a parody, and allows for a memorable cast and lots of innuendoes, not all of which need to be understood for the book to still be stellar-funny. The coda-like ending takes all that ridiculosity and turns it into a surprisingly complex and heartfelt comment on friendship at a time of preadolescence. It’s understandable to young readers because of the adventures that transpire before…and so which turn out to not only be parody, but allegory. Now that’s “distinguished.”

MockNomination for Weedflower

2006-12-30T14:36:00.001-08:00

Sumiko is the most intensely lifelike character in any of the books on our list. Kadohata gets inside her head, communicating feelings, thoughts, and observations with clarity and a wonderful sense of humor. Through this character she excellently presents this slice of history to her audience. Though the audience will benefit from getting background information elsewhere, Kadohata has presented a story that is successful even without this information, in which a girl comes-of-age in a society that marginalizes and criminalizes her. The cultural sentiments of Gaman and haji, that are so important in understanding what happened to Nikkei, are exemplified through the well-drawn side characters in a way that any first-generation immigrant young readers will be able to empathize with.

MockNomination for Freedom Walkers

2006-12-28T15:19:00.000-08:00

Freedman makes this history dramatic and engaging through his clear and concise reportage of events. He gives a dramatic arc to narrative without twisting the truth, providing gripping chapter closures and beginnings, and incorporates dialogue in an engaging way, while documenting sources very clearly. For an audience that recognizes the leadership of Parks and King, here is the full story made accessible: in which these leaders are created and supported by their community, and in which ordinary people prove powerful and victorious armed with nothing but their feet, their voice, their courage and resolve.

better late?

2006-12-28T09:27:00.000-08:00

Sorry to all you who've been stymied trying to post a comment--I've reset it so that you don't need an account to post.

6 down...

2006-12-27T19:11:00.000-08:00

...3 more nomination statements coming shortly--I hope. This is the time of year I ask myself why I'm doing this to myself again this year! That is, cramming in the re-reading. On the actual committee, I'd be reading some of these for the third time, marking pages with post-its and sketching out for each title (of several dozen) an argument for or against, with specific examples to justify. I'm only doing a vague approximation of that here. Like the kid asked to clean her room who just shoves everything under the bed...

But judging a book by the Newbery criteria is a very different way of looking a book than most of us do on a casual read. You have to explicitly UNconsider:

The lovely illustrations or quality of the pages and binding (unless they detract from the writing.)
Other books it is similar too, except for those being discussing. It’s not a valid criterium that the book is the best of this author yet…or just like another book that was written last year.
Personal reading preferences!: whether or not this is a book that you just "like" or "don't like" don't matter. Unless you can explain...very specifically...why.

It's a fabulous excercise, but a heckuva lot of work, and I'm whining about doing not one-hundredth of it. If you know someone on the Newbery Committee this year, now's the time NOT to invite them to the movies. Give them a kiss, a pat on the head, a good light, and some reading glasses.

MockNomination for The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane

2006-12-27T19:08:00.000-08:00

Camillo’s intricate voice, rhythm, and word choice is vibrant and not at all patronizing, nor sappy—despite the heartwrenching-and-warmingness of her tale. She uses image, sound, and smell to fine effect, creating an immediate setting. That and the vivid characterization within a brief and allegorical narrative leave readers speechless and truly believing in the heart of the china rabbit. It is amazingly crafted to reach and appeal a very wide audience, even within the age group governed by our criteria.

MockNomination for Gossamer

2006-12-27T18:49:00.000-08:00

Here are characters and plot that are simple and undressed, but emotionally real. They are clearly allegorical; the situation of the dream givers takes shape as dialogue between Gossamer and her teachers, almost as if the writer were asking herself questions and then answering herself. The simple delivery and short length allows direct access to her young audience, who learn—really—how to create not dreams, but stories, and how these stories then help us in our lives: “you must include the sad parts, because they are part of the story, and they have to be part of the dreams.” (p.96)

MockNomination for The King of Attolia

2006-12-20T18:37:00.000-08:00

“Delineation of plot” and “Development of characters.” What other book this year could I hold up as a “truly distinguished” example of these qualities but The King of Attloia? Here is narrative that is vivid, suspenseful, and funny. The story is told as much in gesture as in action or emotion, so that the reader can picture the motions and facial expressions as if in a movie. And as in a movie, what is not said as is important as what is, as the development often occurs just below the surface. Political intrigue, treachery, and triumphant trickery that is engaging and appealing to a young audience is delivered up with complexity that doesn’t patronize.

MockNomination for A True and Faithful Narrative

2006-12-16T14:45:00.000-08:00

(I'll remind you too to check out Monica Edinger's well-drawn thoughts on this one. She's posted several times about it, so just put the title in her search bar to get them all. And feel free to comment on my nomination statements if you disagree...)

In her work of historical fiction Sturtevant presents details of setting and custom seamlessly through the presentation of her narrative, and communicates the perspectives of people in 17th century England through her characters’ differences in opinion. These characters are vivid, and realistic to their time. Even Meg, a “modern” woman in many ways, is understandably closed-minded when it comes to people of other colors and faiths. Sturtevant has also created an engaging coming-of-age novel with elements of romance and adventure. She creates tension through gesture and conversation, creating layers that the readers understand without needing to be told. No other book on our list (with the possible exception of King of Attolia) exhibits such distinguish craft in writing.

MockNomination for Alabama Moon

2006-12-14T10:18:00.000-08:00

Watt has crafted characters that both exist as convincing individuals, and serve as structures through which young readers can see things in a new way, questioning and analyzing what is usually considered “acceptable.” Kit and Hal are the perfect sidekicks through which to explore the boundaries of friendship. Their time in the woods together serves as a backdrop for Moon to demonstrate his survival skills to the reader. Minor characters (Hal’s father Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Wellington the lawyer, Sanders the cop, Mr. Abroscotto the storekeeper) serve as archetypes of adulthood as a child audience is often frustrated by it: loving but unreliable; fair-to-the-point-of-unfairness; powerful and dangerous; informative but ineffectual. This is one-sided to be sure, but Watt uses these battling perspectives to create a drama of human conditions that is fascinating and accessible to a young audience by dressing it as a suspenseful, fascinating, funny, and ultimately satisfying adventure.

MockNomination for A Drowned Maiden's Hair

2006-12-09T15:30:00.000-08:00

(As promised, here's the first of my "justification" statments for the books on our discussion list. If I were on the committee, I'd be writing this in order to convince other committee members that this book (which they might not care for) does stand up to the Newbery award criteria. No plot summary necessary, since everyone's read it. You get about a hundred words in which to make your colleagues re-read the book with a different eye, in the hopes that when you come to the discussion table, most of your persuasion has already done its work....)

A Drowned Maiden’s Hair stands out for its complexity within a predictable form, and distinctively engaging narrative. Schlitz takes her time to develop a plot and characters, but the pace never lags. Her talents as a playwright show in the way she sets a scene, develops tension, and uses conversation. She has a dramatic flair, right from the opening sentence, that shows an attention to and appreciation for her audience, framing the story in two parts or “acts” with a coda, that has the pacing of a play. The climaxes in action serve to further unveil the complex Hawthorne sisters to Maud and the reader, resulting in a deeply nuanced version of a classic orphan story.

Don't forget to take a look at other Mock Newbery lists

2006-12-06T13:11:00.000-08:00

Thanks fuse#8 for collecting a few more links to other Mock Newberies. You'll find em on the sidebar--maybe there's one in your area?

The final discussion list

2006-12-02T11:14:00.000-08:00

Because I have to say "stop" sometime, here we are--a mock short-list of nine titles to discuss on January 7th.

How did I decide what to include? Well, first I was looking for books that I truly like, with writing that I feel stands up to the Newbery criteria. Second, I'm looking for a little diversity and interesting discussion. "Diversity" means in genre, style, first-time vs. "proven" authors, etc...as well as in all the other expected categories. It's not possible to come up with a perfectly diverse list of course, but I do want to make the discussion enlightening as to the process of the actual award, and since we really only have time to discuss eight or nine titles, and the real committee is discussing usually thirty or forty or fifty...

How does the acutal committee come up with their discussion list? Feel free to take a look at the whole manual if you're so inclined, but here's the short version. Committee members have been reading all year long--hundreds of books. They keep each other informed, through the chair, monthly, of titles they want to make sure are being considered by all members. Towards the end of the year, each committee member formally nominates six titles (three in October, and three in December); there's always some overlap, so between fifteen members with six nominations apiece, that's how you end up with the 30-40-50 range. These nominations usually comprise the discussion list, though there's always room to throw in late contenders or second-thoughts if necessary. This discussion list is never made public.

When a committtee member nominates a title, they have to write a 100 word justification of why they think it meets the Newbery criteria. I'll start posting my mock nominations of these nine titles in these weeks leading up to our discussion, to give you a taste of what we'll be focusing on...and a head start in case you want to build your own attack or defense! Feel free also to post comments to these justifications to start an online discussion.

Interested in coming to the discussion? See the previous post about participating, and make sure to let me know.

Trying to get your hands on the books? If you've got an Oakland Public Library Card, you can check them out by requesting the item to be sent to your local branch. I'm replacing the title links in the sidebar from Powells to the OPL Catalog page, as that title comes available in our catalog. (Patience...some are still coming through the order process!)

Participating in the mock Newbery discussion

2006-11-16T11:46:00.000-08:00

If you're in the greater Bay Area (CA), please consider coming to mock discussion on January 7th. Here's what happens:

You read the books (listed right).
You show up.
We set in place the groundrules and procedures that the actual Newbery committee uses, and --abracadabra-- we become the committee, discussing the titles and taking a vote. It is intense, illuminating, quirky, and fun!

Just contact me directly to sign up.

Yellow Star

2006-11-01T13:18:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to include Yellow Star in our discussion...only because it's proven difficult to get a hold of. Somehow my library system missed it entirely, and it is very lightly held at neighboring libraries...and my bookstore tells me out of stock! Not enough to deter me getting it for my library and reading it eventually, but enough to deter me including it in the discussion, because it's become clear to me over the years that no matter how much I want participants to read everything on the list: if it's hard to get, it won't get read.

It sounds, however, fabulous...and with a Boston Globe-Horn Book Honor and other great reviews, I encourage you all to do the extra leg-work to find this book.

New books, new date

2006-10-31T16:25:00.000-08:00

Our official reading list now has 3 more titles, for a total of 7--over there on the right. Notice also that I've changed the date of the discussion! The actual annoucement of award happens late enough this year that we can have the mock discussion after the holiday season, instead of before. I hope to add one more title to the list before Thanksgiving, then call it "complete"...though leaving room for one or two late arriving contenders.

I finished Victory and found it had the same problem as Bread and Roses Too...that by splitting the story between two characters (to broaden the audience?), neither character ever came fully to life. In the case of Victory, Sam has by far the more interesting story, and the tie to the present-day through Molly weakens the tension.