Convince Us
Jonathan and I are working on our shortlist of titles that we’ll be discussing at our in-person Mock Newbery discussions in January (dates TBA for Oakland and San Diego). We try to announce our list just before Thanksgiving, to give you the chance to read up, and limit ourselves to publication dates through October, so that you can get your hands on them. We are getting close, nosing around the few last titles. Here are some that are NOT on our longlist at this point–though they might deserve to be–and which we haven’t discussed yet. So…here’s your chance to convince us otherwise.
THE BOYS OF BLUR. I’m an N.D. Wilson fan: he is a very fine writer, with a great sense of adventure that fills a needed niche for boy readers in particular. The writing here makes an interesting comparison I think to THE NIGHT GARDENER: both tight, tension-filled narratives with engaging characters. But this one has the same problem: the final explanations of the fantasy element don’t do it for me. In THE NIGHT GARDENER I just found it thin; in BOYS OF BLUR I don’t understand it…it feels like a hodge-podge of a lot of allusions thrown together. I greatly admire the effort, but this just doesn’t rise to the top for me.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
RAIN REIGN. Amy Martin’s talent at straightforward narrative that is evocative of character, voice, and setting, all shows to great effect here. At the end of the day though, I’m just not sure that this story distinguishes itself for young readers beyond the introduction of this particular voice for this audience. It’s a fine book that doesn’t deserve this label: but, with a Newbery sticker, wouldn’t it just be that Newbery book that adults want kids to read?
NEST. Hooray for first time author Esther Ehrlich! Her character’s voice is zippy, unique, a little more realistically edgy in tone than in a lot of fare, which I particularly appreciated. She takes us nose-to-nose with Chirp’s emotional roller-coaster in a realistic way. That said, the narrative felt a little ungainly to me; as much as the characters compelled me, the plot and narrative shape did not. Some parts seemed to take too long, and other times I wasn’t sure where we were heading. This may be an impossible side-effect of Chirp’s own disorientation, but it kept on getting in the way of the reading experience for me.
THE MEANING OF MAGGIE. Megan Jean Sovern is another first novelist I’d like to hear more from. She’s in the running for the “keep it short and sweet” award, and shares Ehrlich’s talent with immediacy of voice. I felt I knew this family, and their dynamics, instantly. This seems to be a very personal story, and maybe because of that, in the end didn’t have the kind of plot development or narrative dynamic that we see in other contenders.
THE GREENGLASS HOUSE. Kate Milford is one for plot, but doesn’t touch any of these writers above for character or setting. I was compelled to follow the puzzle to its end, and enjoyed the characters and the cozy setting enough, but it took me a very long time to figure out who was who and where was where…and not that much time to see through the twist. (I have to know though: does Blue hook up with Brandon? I kept waiting for that one…)
THE RIVERMAN. A few of you have mentioned Aaron Starmer’s spring title, and I’m a little surprised more haven’t been clamoring. My problem at this point is that I can barely remember it; however, I remember that despite the fact that I wanted to like this book… I simply didn’t buy it (the parts that we’re supposed to buy). The characters never struck me as true, and while that’s part of the point with Fiona, it’s essential that the reader believe in Alistair. He doesn’t talk or think like a kid, even a weird kid. Yes, the premise is amazingly inventive. But what am I missing? Be convincing.
Filed under: Uncategorized
About Nina Lindsay
Nina Lindsay is the Children's Services Coordinator at the Oakland Public Library, CA. She chaired the 2008 Newbery Committee, and served on the 2004 and 1998 committees. You can reach her at ninalindsay@gmail.com
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
Your Fall Newbery/Caldecott 2025 ‘Hey, Keep an Eye Out’ Lists
Early Sleepy Lines: A Cover Reveal(ish) and Q&A About Wheetle by Cindy Derby
DC Announces Fall 2025 Graphic Novels | News
Talking with the Class of ’99 about Censorship at their School
Book Review: Pick the Lock by A. S. King
ADVERTISEMENT
Nice list! I have been able to get my hands on all of these, except Riverman (still listed as On Order in my local system). I totally agree with your analysis of their strengths and weak points, and am a little relieved to hear someone else say something negative about them. The only one I really want to take a second look at is Meaning of Maggie, which definitely left a better first impression on me than any of the other titles. Although to be fair, I stumbled on it without hearing much buzz about it (so no overly high expectations) and the story touches a chord with my own childhood. This time I will read it more critically for language, development, blah, blah, blah. Looking forward to your short list!
Nina, to your specific complaint about THE RIVERMAN, I don’t think it’s said how far in the future Alistair is telling this story from. If Aquavania is real and his claims to have been there are true, then like Fiona, Alistair could be telling this as a “26-year-old.” So I don’t see this as a fatal flaw, either technically (i.e., Starmer tries and fails to write a convincing 12-year-old voice) or psychologically (i.e., I think the reader is supposed to “not buy” Alistair’s telling. He hints as much himself a couple of times, and I think it’s important that his voice seem indeterminate.)
I personally think pound-for-pound THE RIVERMAN is the best-written book this year, even better than REVOLUTION (though I’d still rank REVOLUTION and maybe EL DEAFO ahead). I am actually re-reading the book right now, so may try to make more “convincing” remarks later if a discussion builds around it. I am willing to wait for THE WHISPER before anointing Mr. Starmer. There could be a GIVER-like danger here in that the sequels could degrade some of what is distinctive about this book.
RAIN REIGN: I think if kids stick with it, they will like this story because it does have a storm and a dog, two high-interest topics, and it isn’t just about living with a disability. I’m not sure they will get over the hump, however, with Rose’s narrative voice and her repetition of homonyms, which can be irritating, even with Rose’s permission to skip the chapter where she talks about them. While the use of homonyms does gives the narrative a certain cadence, which I felt soared by the end, I also felt that Martin used the device inconsistently. Even though it was a coping mechanism, I’m not sure Rose always used it during times of high stress, which didn’t make a lot of sense. (If I were on the committee, I’d definitely do a second close reading of the book.) I also wasn’t totally sold on the depiction of high functioning autism/Aspergers, which I think is tricky with a first-person narrative when you’re talking about a communication disorder. I think having Rose be obsessed with a part of language was a good way to get around it, but I also wondered if Rose was, perhaps, a little too insightful and a little too skilled at picking up non-verbal cues, even as she explained that she had been instructed to do certain things. I did, however, feel sympathy for all the characters, even Rose’s father, because Martin helped me understand him and I appreciated the depiction of a contemporary working-class family, which I think is still rare. In the end and despite some of my concerns, I, an adult reader, found the story moving.
Julie,
I agree with you in many ways regarding RAIN REIGN. I did this as a read aloud with my kids, and they loved the story – and Rose. I did find frustration, however, with the inconsistency of the homonyms. I even had a few kids point this out. I understand it would have been cumbersome to include them everytime, but I agree that they could have at least stayed consistent during times of stress.
You make it sound like we have to pick between BOYS OF BLUR and THE NIGHT GARDENER… That’s unfair!
And on a personal note, it drives me a little nuts when we have such an easy time arguing realistic fiction novels, set in the 1950s, with girl characters as “distinguished”, but we have such a difficult time arguing novels like BOYS OF BLUR as “distinguished,” when often times, it’s because the “fantasy element just doesn’t do it” for us. Why is that? I can tell you one thing, not too many working authors of literature today write prose like N.D. Wilson.
I loved BOYS OF BLUR. I liked how Wilson took time setting up his characters and setting and steeping us in the culture of cane and football in Florida. I like how he hints at the fantasy elements early on to entice readers but doesn’t bring it into the picture until midway through. I like how he trusts his reader enough to understand the lore he has dreamed up, so he doesn’t have to waste a chapter explaining everything to us. We get the lore in spoonfuls. I like that. I thought the ending was thrilling.
I don’t think it’s fair to cross this one off of a list just because you might not personally buy the fantasy elements. Isn’t that more about taste?
Mr H., I’m not making you choose between the two, and I don’t understand the “personal note” about realistic fiction novels in the 50s…I don’t think I make it easy to call anything distinguished.
This is your chance: I was ready to cross these of my list, but am recognizing my personal reading might be in the way. So, you have to convince me. I’ve explained what I found unconvincing about the story. Can you show me why I’m wrong, instead of telling me I am? (Leonard Kim up above has already convinced me I need to at least re-read the Riverman).
I guess my “personal note” was kind of dumb and rushed, sorry. What I’m saying is that when novels are written with a similar prose to Wilson’s, by female authors like Appelt, Turnage, Ingrid Law, even Jenni Holm, and even Lloyd’s A SNICKER OF MAGIC, it seems that these kind of novels (all written by female authors, all including female main characters btw) are easy to argue as “distinguished.” They have the shiny medals to prove it!
Yet now, the exact same kind of novel comes out, just written by a male, including a male main character, pretty much a darker male version of those other types of novels, and we’re not buying the fantasy elements. Why is it so difficult to buy the fantasy in Wilson’s world but not Ingrid Law’s world? Or Natalie Lloyd’s world?
I don’t know, venting… Sorry.
As for BOYS OF BLUR… I already kind of tried convincing you. I think Wilson’s sense of setting is awesome. The burning cane, the swampy muck, all of it came alive in my opinion. I really liked how he took his time establishing this setting and characters so that when he hit you with the fantasy, it made it more convincing and personal.
I really liked how Coach Wisdom lived on in the boys of Taper. All of them had a unique story to tell or personal advice the coach had given them. Sometimes authors try to create this larger than life type character but I don’t really buy it. Coach Wisdom, I did. I felt his presence among the men in Taper.
I like the length of the novel. I like how it’s NOT the start of a series. I like how Wilson doesn’t waste pages over explaining the fantasy elements. Instead, he gives it to you in doses and trusts you to figure it out and visualize it.
I thought it was awesome.
Haven’t read THE RIVERMAN. Really want to now.
Mr. H., if you look back at Heavy Medal readers’ comments on A SNICKER OF MAGIC, you’ll see that a lot of people had issues with that one too. I was among those who found it enjoyable but not distinguished, and a number of people disliked it.
I really doubt it’s a male vs female issue – it seems to go to the specific world-building by each author when it’s fantasy, as well as all the other criteria like plot, setting, etc.
I’m surprised Riverman didn’t stick with you – for me it was one of the few books this year that I couldn’t get out of my head. It’s strikingly original – the most individually distinct book of the year. And not just different, different and great. I agree with you about the characters not talking like real kids (I spent the first couple chapters saying the same), but once the tone of the book became apparent, Fiona and Alistair make sense. You’ve gotta admit that they are clearly delineated and fit with the surreal atmosphere of The Riverman world. And I think you have to consider the skill involved in pulling off a setting like Aquavania – an impressive accomplishment.
Travis, I am going to re-read it, but I will admit that such a unique conceit always puts me on super high alert: I want the author to pull it off COMPLETELY, otherwise it just feels special because of the conceit. I think, for instance, that Margi Preus pulls off her conceit perfectly in WEST OF THE MOON.
Also coloring this may be that this is the first of a triology, and so…as Leonard noted above, there IS more to come, we SHOULD be wary of the voices of the characters, etc. This is kind of the reverse of the “sequel issue,” and don’t know how to solve it without time-travel… that is, should the first of a series have to stand alone? Maybe not, but what if it means we don’t GET it?
I just completed my re-read. I can confirm that Alistair explicitly states, “I stayed for a very long time. To get home. . . has taken me ages. Now that I’m finally here. . . it helps to revisit how it all started.”
I mostly stand by original opinion, but I think Nina nailed it with the reverse sequel issue. What I view as masterful ambiguity in this book is based on faith that the sequels will justify this opinion. But what if the sequels instead suggest it’s really just confusing, careless writing?
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Example: Charlie is always Charlie throughout the entire book, even after Fiona IDs him. Even after Alistair believes, throughout the final confrontation, it is still, “Charlie said” and “Charlie went on.” But then, at the very climax, “‘And she will never . . . ever . . . have you,’ the Riverman said,” I want to believe that singular instance is intentional and controlled and brilliant (and still ambiguous!) And yet, what if the sequels disappoint, and it turns out this comes to feel unintentional, like a missed “find-and-replace”?
Leonard, I just finished my reread on this, and…
Alistair’s voice. His narrator’s voice is justified as you’ve pointed out, and is fine. I actually find his *conversational* voice to be stilted in a non-kid way, and this comes out most when he’s expressing his love and devotion to Fiona. Maybe this is just natural for a weird 12 yr old in that position? But it just sounded arcane to me:”I can make sure you feel young again.” (p.211) “I need you to know that you matter.” (p. 221). I’m willing to concede this is not fatal, or so significant that it drags down what might be the book’s very strong merits.
LOTS OF SPOILERS FOLLOW HERE>>>>>>>>>
I do think the unfinished plot is a fatal flaw for me, because while I am intrigued, and while I think Starmer’s done an incredible job of laying out a possibly mind-blowing narrative in a consistent way, I’m not yet convinced that Aquavania is going to be a compelling fantasy world, and that’s simply because we haven’t been there yet. There’s a couple of red flags/oddities for me about Aquavania. There’s SO much teasing allegory re “stories” that I worry for allegorical overload once we get there. Perhaps that’s unfair, but I don’t have anything else to go on. And my eyebrows go up at Fiona’s assertion she has grown into a better person over 12 yrs in what is essentially a blank slate with no other human interaction. Yes, we don’t have the whole story yet, but I’m not swallowing something this unlikely until I see more.
None of this damns the book for me in a general evaluation, because I’m perfectly happy to wait for volume 2. However, it does make it not a fully distinguished work for me for Newbery consideration. On top of this sequel problem, the other thing that just makes it sink a bit for me is that I did not remember ANYTHING about the plot of this story. Nada. I remembered only Alistair and Fiona and that she has a magic world. I did not remember the Dorian red herring until it came. I did not remember the Charlie denounement…even having read your spoiler above…until Fiona unveiled it. I did not remember the climax with the gun, even when the gun entered the plot!…not until Alistair fired, and then I couldn’t remember who he’d shot until I turned the page. Maybe all of this will stick better once I have the whole story. I am looking forward to it.
I’ve been told the the galleys for THE WHISPER are out there 🙂
I think that is completely fair, and that’s why I myself qualified my enthusiasm by saying I would personally rank some books ahead of it even though I thought it was the best “written” book. I actually think it stands alone well enough in a SAM AND DAVE DIG A HOLE kind of way, and even if the sequels disappoint, I think the book itself is remarkable for “what it sets out to do.” But as I said, I see the wisdom in waiting and am perfectly happy to do so.
There are several books this year where I thought the payoffs to varying levels disappointed after a strong build-up: THE NIGHT GARDENER, EGG AND SPOON, GABRIEL FINLEY AND THE RAVEN’S RIDDLE, NIGHTINGALE’S NEST, to name a few. One way THE RIVERMAN excels, I believe, is by not losing tension throughout a series of climaxes and revelations by keeping persistent questions and uncertainties to the fore. (Even the reality of Aquavania is still up-for-grabs in the end. I doubt Starmer will go this direction, but if the whole thing turns out to be a conspiracy/hoax played on Alistair by Fiona and Charlie, I don’t think that would be inconsistent with anything in the book, and Alistair’s claim to have gone there may be a product of trauma from the shooting.)
In short, I have rarely read such a carefully-written book, or at least it feels like it is…
GREENGLASS HOUSE is definitely one of my favorites this year, and is a favorite in my Mock Newbery Committee as well. I too saw the twist coming — though perhaps not as early as some of you, since it wasn’t frustrating for me to wait until the characters saw it. But here’s a question: Does it matter if adults can anticipate plot twists, if generally speaking kids can’t? My kids who have read Greenglass House are fairly sophisticated 5th and 6th grade readers (because it’s a little long, I think — but not too long for what it is), and not one of them has said to me, “It’s predictable.” What I’ve heard is, “I didn’t see that coming!” and “When it was revealed, I looked back throughout the book…”
As for character development, I think it’s hard with a large cast of characters, but I think she did a great job of making them quirky and distinct enough (the socks, the hair, etc.) to be memorable. There aren’t as many characters as, say The Westing Game (apologies for the comparison), a book I loved but had a truly hard time remembering who was who. And I think the characters that needed development were well developed.
So that’s my pitch for Greenglass House. Just a quick note on the others, from my kids’ perspectives if not mine:
BOYS OF BLUR: I can barely get anyone to read it, and despite how short it is, most who have started it haven’t finished it.
RAIN REIGN: Those who have read it seem to really like it.
NEST: Kids who have read it have loved it and recommend it to others, and have said it’s the saddest book we have in Mock Newbery this year.
THE MEANING OF MAGGIE: One of our most read books this year, possibly because it’s short and possibly because it fits the niche of the realistic, sad book that teaches kids about a topic most are unfamiliar with.
THE RIVERMAN: I read it over the summer and really liked it but decided not to put it in Mock Newbery because it seemed too YA to me. A discussion that’s been had already, I know.
Can someone explain the appeal of N.D. Wilson’s prose to me? I feel like one of Hannah’s students in that I could barely get through BOYS OF BLUR (though I did like that first page) and I had a similar experience with LEEPIKE RIDGE. Yet Nina calls him “a very fine writer.” Betsy Bird’s review refers to Wilson’s ability to “turn a phrase” and suggests the language is “beautiful.”
Mr. H praises the sense of setting, yet personally I had trouble picturing any of it, despite (or perhaps because of) the specificity of description. I felt like one could draw a fairly accurate map of the various settings based on the text, but that’s not the same as being drawn into the book’s world. (Truth be told, I had a similar reaction to Megan Whalen Turner’s THE THIEF.)
In the end, though perhaps for different reasons, I’m with Nina in not understanding the book.
Normally, Leonard, I’m with you. LEEPIKE RIDGE and 100 CUPBOARDS were difficult for me to get through.
BOYS OF BLUR, for some reason or other, I just got. I like it a lot.
Leonard, I think the first page is a nice measure of his writing, and when I flip through I can find elements of it throughout. The prose is just good in the mouth, and has that read-aloud feel that makes me, as a reader, believe that there is a real omniscent narrator telling me this story from inside the body and brain of each character. There’s a sense of immediacy I get from that which I value as a reader.
I’m a little embarrassed to say I didn’t see the twist coming in Greenglass House at all, but A. I do kind of try to read mysteries without guessing what’s going to happen; I don’t like to create my own spoilers and B. I wasn’t engaged with it enough to think about it that deeply while I was reading.
I said in my Goodreads review that I thought there were too many characters (which I still think); I definitely had trouble remembering who was who, but more to the point, understanding what necessary function many of the characters had in the story. But as soon as I wrote that, I challenged myself: what about The Westing Game? That has lots of characters, and if anything, most of them are much more shallowly explored than those in Greenglass House (since I suggested there should be fewer characters explored more deeply). What saves The Westing Game for me is that I felt like I had exactly the amount of information about each character that I needed (whether Sydelle Pulaski, whom we get in depth, or Madame Hoo, who we get very little of, or Mr. and Mrs. Theodorakis, who barely appear in the pages at all); each character has very distinctive and memorable elements; and the style is done in such a way that the information about each character is presented in a straightforward, factual, at times almost journalistic way that really makes an impression. Every time the characters gather (for instance, when attendance was taken at the first reading), we get a quick rundown of who each character is. Likewise when they begin to investigate each other. Several more characters, much shorter book: Greenglass House felt muddled to me.
I think that initially in the Greenglass house, we are supposed to feel as if there are too many characters. Our protagonist certainly feels that way! But as the storytelling continued and our heroes discover more about the guests they became distinct with a degree of detail that serves the story. This is one of my favorites of the year, although I will concede that I don’t expect to see it as a Newbery contender. It’s just a perfect little adventure to curl up with on a holiday break, and I would disagree that the number of characters bustling around disqualify it, but the setting feels much like the world building for an RPG. Every detail we notice has significance, every nook and cranny ties into the mystery. That makes for a very satisfying read, but not necesarily a distinguished one. Everyone’s simultaneous presence at the inn is contrived without explanation, which I wouldn’t have minded as a young reader but must note as an adult reader.
i feel the same way about GREENGLASS HOUSE — one of my personal favorites of the year, though maybe not a contender. I would add, however, that I found the setting distinguished in that it felt fully realized without ever being over-explained. I also wasn’t bothered by the number of characters, but I read a lot of cozy mysteries set in house parties, so perhaps my bias is showing here!
Same here – I enjoyed it greatly, would have loved it as a kid (when I was a tween reading lots of Agatha Christie), but am not sure if it will be a contender. Didn’t see the twist coming until a few pages beforehand. I found the setting and plot distinguished, and the characterization of the main character (and thought his parents were nicely well-rounded characters).
I just finished GREENGLASS and loved it. I did not anticipate the BIG reveal, but felt the discoveries along the way made sense. I will not have any problem getting students to read it!
But “Blue hook up with Brandon?”–only in a thieving way!
Mr. H has said all I would say about Boys of Blur quite well. It is the most distinguished in setting and character in my opinion.
I would need to do a reread of Greenglass House to defend it on specifics. I was so caught up in the enjoyment of it as I read it, that I wasn’t really thinking of it in Newbery terms. And that may be where I want to leave it. I hope to do a reread of it before Christmas though because it is such a perfect Christmas read. I may come back to it after that.
Rain Reign I can see the appeal of, but iI wasn’t a huge fan and the inconsistency of the homonyms was a huge part of that. Mostly the voice just never felt genuine to me.
I had a hard time with The Riverman because it made me genuinely angry in so many places. I would really need to try and get past that anger to assess it properly using the Newbery criteria. I do strongly feel it lost its way about in the middle. The end made me want to throw it. And I was not really sure why it needed to be set in the 80s except that conveniently got rid of Internet searches for plot purposes. I’m a big proponent of not setting a book in the past if there isn’t a reason for it. (Like a historical event the plot is centered around.)
Alistair’s recounts being almost three years old on November 22, 1979. Aaron Starmer’s birthday seems to be December 9, 1976. That’s not a justification, but I can sympathize if an author feels more effective conjuring feelings they remember having as a kid (in the environment at that time) rather than trying to get into the heads of the youth of 2014.
A few details are more effective for being of that time: Fiona first reaches out to Alistair with a “play me”-labeled audio cassette. Not sure how one would best translate that to today. Things like the Halloween antics seem to me more of that time as well and would be much less tolerated today.
None of ‘my kids’ nominated Boys of Blur this week, although a few do acknowledge good writing. Of course these middle school kids see no point to any magical realism in any book yet. To me, Boys of Blur is the first I’ve read where it really fit well. In fact, I believe that’s what gives this story its purpose.
Nest is a true favorite of our group. All here say it is distinguished literature, and talk about the setting mirroring the characters’ feelings, the ‘amazing plot,’ and the writing style showing the “beauty of each scene with symbols that gather depth, with the perfect amount of carefree and just enough pain to ring true.”
The Greenglass House was nominated with us, citing the “attention to all the small, quirky details and the use of the kids’ role-playing game to explore a place they’ve seen all their lives.” Personally, this was a good read that I enjoyed too much to disect it while reading.
The Riverman hit a huge snag with us at the ending, even though we all acknowledge the great writing and language throughout the book. But the kids argue that if it needs a sequel to explain what happens, then it isn’t complete in itself. And they are just not accepting its ending as complete. Several of us bemoaned that, as we love the writing style so much.
Two other titles that this group is loving are Paper Cowboy and Bird – each with very relate-able characters and theme. But we are still reading and comparing. It is really interesting to me to see which titles resonate with the middle school crowd.
Thanks for sharing readers responses, I always enjoy these. I wonder, with THE RIVERMAN, whether this one compels them enough to read the next one that it might be considered distinguished in that aspect?
How old are your readers.
RAIN, REIGN and THE MEANING OF MAGGIE made it onto our “You Choose the Next Newbery” ballot for the King County Library System (http://bit.ly/1zwBYjt). I won’t try to make a case here for RR (I liked it and I think kids will too, but I don’t think it’s individually distinct), but I did really love TMOM. I agree with Nina that it’s light on plot, but I think the character development and style were distinguished. What really impressed me was Sovern’s tackling a heavy subject (a parent with a serious debilitating disease) with such a gentle and, somehow, fun touch. How does she do this? I think Maggie is a somewhat unreliable narrator, trying to be relentlessly positive instead of dealing with the the seriousness of her father’s condition (e.g. his legs are “asleep” not “paralyzed”). The footnotes add humor and it makes sense that a girl who loves school and research so much would delight in adding footnotes to her memoir. Also, throughout the book, I think Sovern did a great job of showing (as opposed to telling) the reader what her strong working-class family was all about. I may be biased towards this book because it really hit home for me as a child of the 80s whose parents also worked tirelessly to make ends meet (I even come from a family with three girls, just like Maggie). I’m really looking forward to hearing from kids who’ve read it. To be fair, though, there are a few anachronisms in TMOM that bothered me that may be fatal flaws because they were really jarring. I don’t think anyone said “TMI” or “Spanglish” in the 1980s. I also don’t think medical marijuana would’ve been commonly referred to at that time.
Destinee, thanks for the compelling justificatn for exactly what I appreciated about TMOM too…