Looking Back: 2007
Last year, we began a retrospective series where we revisited the 2005 Newbery crop. This year, we’re going to turn our attention to the 2007 Newbery picks.
WHAT WON
Susan Patron won for THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY. You’ll remember there was a big fuss made in some quarters about the use of the word “scrotum” which unfortunately detracted from the celebration of these titles. Patron has since written two sequels, LUCKY BREAKS and LUCKY FOR GOOD, but I think I’m not alone in wanting to see what her first non-Lucky book will look like, since sequels have such a hard time of it during Newbery discussions.
Jennifer Holm picked up the second of her three Newbery honors for PENNY FROM HEAVEN. Of course, she would score again several years later with TURTLE IN PARADISE, and this year she is once again in the thick of the conversation with THE FOURTEENTH GOLDFISH. Cynthia Lord won a Schneider Family Book Award at the beginning of the YMAs, and then scored again with a Newbery Honor for RULES at the end. She’s written HALF A CHANCE this year, but despite its three starred reviews, it didn’t generate much discussion here. Kirby Larson’s HATTIE BIG SKY took the remaining Honor book. Larson wrote a sequel, HATTIE EVER AFTER, last year that got some discussion. These are both kind of middle school books, but DUKE and, this year, DASH plant her firmly in juvenile territory. We haven’t given either book much discussion, although I think they are well written and fairly popular with children.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
K.T. Horning recently wrote a series for the Horn Book on various Caldecott books through the decades, and one of those articles was about HEY, AL! which she dubbed “the quirky choice.” Since THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY seemed to come out of left field (and with little fanfare), I think it’s fair to dub this one a quirky choice, too. Morever, the honor books were similarly unheralded, compounding the perception that the choices were “quirky.” In retrospect, I don’t have a problem with any of the books recognized in this particular year; what is more problematic, I think, is that they are all idiosyncratic choices. Does it reflect poorly on the committee when they ignore all the popular favorites in favor of an entire slate of obscure titles?
WHAT COULD HAVE WON
Since I had just come off Newbery and was slated to go on Printz the following year, I was taking a bit of a breather and had not read any of the aforementioned books prior to the announcement (and I still haven’t read the honor books). I also had only read these first two here.
I did read THE KING OF ATTOLIA by Megan Whalen Turner, and that would have been my choice for the Medal from what I did read. We sing Turner’s praises on this blog every time she comes out with a new book–and with good reason. Still, I suspect the sequel issue and the age issue must have hampered the book in discussion and made it difficult to build consensus around. We had another love fest when A CONSPIRACY OF KINGS was published several years ago, and from what I understand there will be two more books in this series, so there’s yet hope.
Many people bet that Kate DiCamillo would pick up her second Medal for THE MIRACULOUS JOURNEY OF EDWARD TULANE which had already scored the Boston Globe-Horn Book Award. Was it the crucified bunny or the precious tone that doomed the book. No matter. DiCamillo won her second Medal last year for FLORA & ULYSSES.
I’m always intrigued when Horn Book and Bulletin–the two stingiest review journals–are the only ones to star a particular book, yet that’s what happened when Laura Amy Schlitz published her debut, A DROWNED MAIDEN’S HAIR. Of course, Schlitz would later win the Medal for GOOD MASTERS! SWEET LADIES! and an Honor for SPLENDORS AND GLOOMS.
Speaking of debut novels, what about the beginning of that wonderful chapter book series: CLEMENTINE by Sara Pennypacker. We’ve discussed later books in the series, but we can never seem to escape that freshness of meeting this character for the first time. Been there, done that. Or so it would seem.
If none of the previous books have lacked for an audience despite a lack of Newbery recognition, the same cannot be said for this final book: A TRUE AND FAITHFUL NARRATIVE by Katherine Sturtevant. This is a companion to an earlier book, AT THE SIGN OF THE STARS, but it stands alone. I have it on good authority that this was one of the very best books of the year–and now it is virtually unknown. Of course, the same could be said of so many books published in any given year. If only.
Filed under: Uncategorized
About Jonathan Hunt
Jonathan Hunt is the Coordinator of Library Media Services at the San Diego County Office of Education. He served on the 2006 Newbery committee, and has also judged the Caldecott Medal, the Printz Award, the Boston Globe-Horn Book Awards, and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize. You can reach him at hunt_yellow@yahoo.com
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
Further Predictions! Everything That ISN’T Newbery/Caldecott 2025
Hilda and Twig | This Week’s Comics
The Seven Bills That Will Safeguard the Future of School Librarianship
Shakespeare, but Make it Queer!: Retelling a Classic Play and My Love/Hate Relationship with William Shakespeare, a guest post by Emma K. Ohland
Gayle Forman Visits The Yarn!
ADVERTISEMENT
Monica Edinger says
Yes about A TRUE AND FAITHFUL NARRATIVE. Fabulous, fabulous book.
Ursula says
I agree that A TRUE AND FAITHFUL NARRATIVE is a magnificent book. It began life under a curse because of that brown cover. I’ve been a librarian now for thirty-five years, which means I’ve been pulling books off shelves and setting them up on display, and here’s the truth: books with dull, murky brown covers get left behind after every other book on the display has gone out. Brown covers are the kiss of death. Wispy gray is almost as bad. Black’s fine, if there’s enough chiaroscuro–children think black looks spooky. But Andrew-Wyeth-brown with a few gold highlights….hopeless. I wish publishers would take this into consideration. SLAKE’S LIMBO, or THE WITCHES OF WORM…I can only move them in paperback.
Wendy says
I usually don’t think too much about what was “robbed”, but this year is one that’s clear to me: The Green Glass Sea was most distinguished and I think it was robbed. The books that got medals don’t hold a candle to it. There was some question about whether it was eligible, because the last chapter had been published in another form, but we’ve seen a few of those over the last few years.
The thing that’s odd about this year is that the books feel so similar to me–all of them are the kind of books many people THINK always win the Newbery, though they really don’t.
Mr. H says
Doing a little research, I went back through all the winners and honors from the last decade Wendy, and you’d actually be surprised how often “these kinds” of books do win. Realistic fiction or historical fiction. Female main characters (almost 2x as many). Female authors (31 to 13 male). Quite a bit actually. This year, 2007, took the cake!
Look at the three year stretch of winners from 2005 to 2007: KIRA KIRA, CRISS CROSS, THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY.
Wendy says
I’ve done fairly extensive statistics on this, Mr. H. Over time, there are more male protagonists than female. We’ve been through this before.
Mr. H says
I was speaking about the last ten years.
Jonathan Hunt says
Oh, THE GREEN GLASS SEA! Didn’t read it, of course, but it got good reviews and scored the O’Dell.
Eric Carpenter says
I loved THE GREEN GLASS SEA. Certainly an exemplary piece of historical fiction. 2007 was a stand out year for fiction. GGS along with PENNY, HATTIE, and EDWARD TULANE are some of my all time favorites (I prefer the 2nd and 3rd Clementines to the first, and the final installment coming in January is pretty much perfect).
Was their any nonfiction of note that got passed over in 2007?
Jonathan Hunt says
It didn’t strike me as a particularly strong year for nonfiction. The previous year was amazing, however, and we often see a strong year followed by a weaker one. The Sibert went to TEAM MOON with honors to QUEST FOR THE TREE KANGAROO, FREEDOM RIDERS, and TO DANCE.
The first CLEMENTINE may seem weaker than the second and third, but we wouldn’t have had the benefit of that knowledge, obviously.
Barb Outside Boston says
Of the winners, the only one that is constantly being read in my school is RULES.
Sam Bloom says
First of all, while I think it is fun to look back at books from any given year, and while we may or may not personally love each book chosen in a given year, remember that hindsight is 20/20 and there are only fifteen people on the planet (give or take) who read a gazillion eligible books each year. So I can’t help but groan and roll my eyes when I read a slew of “this book was more distinguished than the winner/honor books” or “I’ve never met a kid in my life who checked out Medal Winner X/Honor Book Y from my library” comments. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but when you’re on the committee you’re one of 15, you’re living and breathing books for 365 days and nights, and you have the terms and criteria burned on your brain, but when you go into the discussion there’s a good chance not a single book you love will end up with a sticker on its cover… because so much of the process is coming to a consensus with 14 other extremely opinionated and well-read individuals.
And honestly, look at the books that Jonathan has mentioned (minus the last one, which I haven’t read); how in the world are you going to build consensus around those titles? You’ve got the 3rd book in a series that is (a) arguably too YA for Newbery (note that I PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS ARGUMENT, but it is one we hear a lot with mwt’s books) and (b) fantasy. Add the “it doesn’t stand alone” argument and it is 3 strikes and yer out. Then there’s Edward Tulane; I know many folks who LOVE this book (I’m one of them), but I also have heard tell of many folks who HATE this book. LOATHE it. Fingernails on the chalkboard, shuddering in agony. So imagine trying to sway someone like that to your side if you’re a proponent of the china bunny! A Drowned Maiden’s Hair… now, I’m not personally a huge fan of Schlitz’s books-though I respect her greatly as an obviously gifted writer, I’m just not the right reader for her stuff-and think she is one of those love her or hate her writers. Again, difficult to build consensus (though of course, she’s won the gold AND the silver, so go figure). And then you’ve got an early chapter book with a protagonist who is a very distant cousin of Junie B. Jones. When you’re up against all the books from a calendar year, that’s just not happening.
And Jonathan, my friend, WHY do you insist on making statements such as the “idiosyncratic choices” one? Do you really think the committee sat down and made a conscious decision to eschew the “buzz” books?! Are they really going to sit down and say, “Let’s only pick the weird books this year, gang!” Nope. (Plus, you were on the committee that chose CRISS CROSS, dude! My favorite Newbery ever, for what it’s worth, but Lynne Rae Perkins is the QUEEN of idiosyncrasy!!! So you’re one to talk!) ;b
One final thought… there are two more books coming out in the Thief of Eddis?! What?!? Be still my beating heart!
Wendy says
Sam, you say it’s fun to look back and that everyone’s entitled to an opinion, so why chastise the people doing those things? Here, I can roll my eyes, too.
Jonathan Hunt says
Obviously, I’ve struck a nerve, Sam. I think this post begs two questions: (1) Is it possible that two things can be equally true? Namely that the committee can be comprised of the smartest, most articulate, most passionate, and most well-read people *and* that by some objective measure they can produce a collective decision that can be found significantly lacking in some respect? And (2) having served on the Newbery committee are we obligated join the ALSC version of the Blue Wall of Silence?
Knowing the process the way that I do, I cannot fault any committee for their omissions alone. People on a committee vote for books, not against books, and that means that they simply esteemed the books they chose more highly than the others that they loved and adored as much as we all did. And every single book in the Newbery canon has supporters and detractor. The Medal and Honor books from 2007 are no exception, and the first half of this post was an attempt to celebrate those books with an update of how those authors have continued to be a presence in the field of children’s literature since.
Any group of 15 people may produce a different–and equally distinguished–list of winners in any give year for any given committee, but I do think there are some titles that would frequently repeat over and over again, regardless of the individual make up of the committee.
For example . . . Out of 100 committees, I think a very high percentage would have recognized HOLES or WHEN YOU REACH ME or THE TALE OF DESPEREAUX. The less likely a committee’s results are to be duplicated by random groupings of 15 different people, the more idiosyncratic those choices are. Virtually every single committee has idiosyncratic choices. The lone exceptions I can think of in the past 25 years are HOLES/A LONG WAY FROM CHICAGO and MANIAC MAGEE/THE TRUE CONFESSIONS OF CHARLOTTE DOYLE.
As for my year, CRISS CROSS, HITLER YOUTH, and SHOW WAY were not idiosyncratic choices in terms of the critical reception; they may have been surprising to the rank and file librarian who wants every book to be a middle grade novel, but they wouldn’t have been a surprise to informed readers. PRINCESS ACADEMY and WHITTINGTON were the two on our list that were idiosyncratic. That doesn’t mean they are less wonderful or are somehow undeserving. I simply mean that parallel committees would have probably been more likely to pick THE PENDERWICKS or DAY OF TEARS, for example, than these two. And truth be told, the idiosyncratic choices are what make the announcements so fun! Wouldn’t it be boring if they simply read off the three to five books that are at the top of those composite starred reviews and best of the year lists?
I’m as loathe to criticize the efforts of previous and subsequent committees as anyone, especially knowing the process, knowing that I’m far more critical of our decisions than anyone else could ever be. So you can do this flippant little post with five overlooked books? Ha! I can name a couple dozen books that got screwed the year I was on the committee, but as Judy Freeman said last year on Calling Caldecott the committee simply cannot recognize every single worthy book.
On the other hand, as a critic I find it kind of offensive that we are expected to put on our kid gloves for the Newbery committee. Are your feelings really so tender and fragile, Newbery committee, that you cannot stand criticism, both that annoying uninformed kind that you mention, Sam, but the more thoughtful and intelligent kind?
The 2007 committee presents a dilemma, although as I simply haven’t read many of these books I cannot be as passionate as some people in regard to these choices. I don’t find fault with any single “idiosyncratic” book, nor with any of the omissions that I and others have mentioned, but the combination of the two . . . does give me pause.
Sam Bloom says
You “think” you struck a nerve… whatEVER do you mean?! 😉
To be honest, I wasn’t trying to argue that we should tiptoe around criticism of a certain committee’s picks. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully?) to make was this: the majority-I would say vast majority-of criticism heaped on the committee’s choices of any given year tends to be the annoying and uninformed kind.
I’m still scratching my head over the question you initially raised in your post: Does it reflect poorly on the committee when they ignore all the popular favorites in favor of an entire slate of obscure titles? A smart man once said: “A book that is not wildly popular is not the same thing as a book that no children like.” And how “obscure” were those titles, really? I remember everyone’s surprise at LUCKY winning, but as you said Jenni Holm had already taken home a silver. So I’d argue that Penny from Heaven probably wasn’t much of a shock. I don’t remember much about the other two Honors; were they really that surprising? I’m asking honestly, because this was back before I was keeping track of starred reviews and awards buzz. And those four books all have quite a bit of kid appeal, if you ask me.
“The ALSC version of the Blue Wall of Silence”- ha! As for point 1 in your reply to my comment, I honestly find EVERY committee lacking in some way (even my own). In 2007, count me as one of the people who would have loved to see King of Attolia win the gold, and I would have loved to see Edward Tulane take a silver. But since they gave PENNY a silver, I’m happy.
Jonathan Hunt says
Sam, I actually trimmed that question–Does it reflect poorly on the committee when they ignore all the popular favorites in favor of an entire slate of obscure titles?–from the post before it was scheduled to be published as I feared that I may have gone too far (for some people), but it inexplicably got published along with the rest of the post, so there’s no taking it back now.
THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY was starred by Kirkus and included by them as a best book. HATTIE BIG SKY had two starred reviews and no best of the year lists. Neither PENNY FROM HEAVEN nor RULES had a starred review or best of the year list. Having said that, SMILE didn’t get any starred reviews either, but SISTERS this year has four of them. Did she really improve that dramatically from that book to this one–or did the crowd of review journals just pull their respective heads out? I’m in love with committees that shine the spotlight on underrated books, but don’t you have to throw in something that aligns with the critical and popular assessment of the year’s best books?
Sam Bloom says
Well, that SMILE/SISTERS example says it all… look at how Lord’s books since RULES have fared. Has a single one NOT been starred by someone? And while I haven’t read the one she put out this year, I would say RULES is her best book by far. So your point is well taken. But I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree in terms of popularity and the winners. Because how are we defining popularity? Popularity with the target audience? Popularity with the review journals? Popularity with you and me?
Jonathan Hunt says
I’m really not sure what you’re talking about with popularity, but here’s what I mean: Critics often like one thing. You can measure this by starred reviews and best of the year lists and awards that start to pour in. The masses often like something else. You can measure this by whether a book is a bestseller or whether it’s getting buzz in the community: on blogs, in informal water-cooler conversations across the children’s book industry, and social media. For example, NIGHTINGALE’S NEST, THE BOYS OF BLUR, and THE RIVERMAN may not have the critical buzz that some books have, but they continue to be in the public consciousness when it comes to Newbery. We wouldn’t necessarily be surprised by any of them, even if we suspect they might not be the most likely choices.
So when a committee recognizes a book that doesn’t have very much critical *or* popular support prior to the announcement–fine!–but when *every* single book fits that profile to the point that you wonder if they just pulled names out of the hat . . . you don’t think that undermines the choices just a bit? Not to unread masses, but to the people who read fairly widely, if not as wide as the committee?
Jonathan Hunt says
Has anyone read Thom’s Rules of Order in the most recent Horn Book?
http://www.hbook.com/2014/11/choosing-books/horn-book-magazine/thoms-rules-order-ten-tips-good-book-discussion/
This point is particularly relevant to this discussion: “Do not be swayed, for or against a particular book, based on how you anticipate other people might react.” That said, I always hope that a mix of Oh-I-knew-it! titles and Wow-that’s-a-surprise titles will emerge organically without the committee thinking of this at all.
Sam Bloom says
Okay, I see what you mean now, Jonathan… but I still don’t necessarily agree that a committee’s choices are undermined if they haven’t fit one of those two criteria you mentioned (best-of lists and/or children’s book community buzz). And yes, I love Thom’s Rules of Order!
Jonathan Hunt says
Sam, I don’t think a committee’s choices are undermined if each book doesn’t have popular or critical buzz, but shouldn’t at least one of their titles have them? I think this extends to other committees and experts, too. For example, some of the old YALSA BBYA committees used to exclude the Harry Potter books to which I always said, “How can you make a list of 85 books and not have Harry Potter? It undermines your legitimacy by making you look stupid and incompetent, and leads the list user to question whether they can trust your other choices?” When I do best book presentations in a number of venues I have people that are fairly well read, and they do come to find those gems that they didn’t know about, but having the popular and critical favorites on my list lends legitimacy to my claims of being an expert in the field. So I think this is really a bigger issue than just the Newbery committee in general or one particular committee.
I feel like I have to argue both the prosecution and the defense here, so this is what I would say in rebuttal to my own comments. In this particular year there really wasn’t a critical consensus–at least not like this year where you have BROWN GIRL DREAMING and THE FAMILY ROMANOV with six starred reviews, and REVOLUTION and WEST OF THE MOON with five. None of the books that I have mentioned got more than four starred reviews (the divisive EDWARD TULANE which had already picked up a major award), so it’s not like the review journals agreed on what was the best book either, save for OCTAVIAN NOTHING which had five starred reviews and the NBA. I know Nina would have been happy with that book, but it would have made CRISS CROSS look like a juvenile chapter book in comparison. So I think this year was bound to be a wide open kind of year anyway.
Jonathan Hunt says
Having said that, I just checked on a couple more titles. ESCAPE! by Sid Fleischman, a Houdini bio, is listed as having six starred reviews. I don’t remember that, but I was still in a post-Newbery reading haze. UP BEFORE DAYBREAK by Deborah Hopkinson compared and contrasted the way cotton affected the rural South and the industrialized North. It had three starred reviews, and was also very good. Not nonfiction, but the first IVY + BEAN book came out that year.
Misti says
Looking back at that year brings back some great memories: I was in library school, and taking an advanced criticism of children’s lit course. We looked long and hard at those books, and at many notable books that did not win, and I came away with an appreciation of all of the year’s winners. These books are the ones I cut my teeth on, in terms of making a deep and thorough evaluation of youth literature. But I will say that, in my heart of hearts, I will always like CLEMENTINE and THE KING OF ATTOLIA better than any of the official winners.
Nina Lindsay says
Resurfacing from the California Library Association conference here, I’m just going to remark on Jonathan’s question, “Does it reflect poorly on the committee when they ignore all the popular favorites in favor of an entire slate of obscure titles?” because while I think it’s a generally fair question, I think it’s also intentionally provocative, and it hit my own nerve too. And I’m sure Sam and I aren’t the only ones.
Your implied suggestion is: “if you’re not going to award at least one buzz book, better make your case compelling.” That is fair…but you’re also implying through your post that this particular committee did not. And that’s where the nerve is. I appreciate that you intended to trim it; since it’s there, I just need to point out that I don’t think Sam is overreacting. (And readers, Sam was not on that committee, nor was I, it’s just nerve-hitting-by-association). I agree it would be nice if the process “organically” allowed for a nice mix of titles that would include popular favorites. But we KNOW, through evidence, that it does not. Thus the famous/infamous Anita Silvey article etc.
I do think there’s a burden on the committee, because of this, to make its choices the most compelling possible. And sometimes it is harder than others. There’ve been several years of Newbery awards in recent memory that have dropped my jaw, and which I still, honestly, have not figured out. But there’s also the “chaos theory” of buzz. I think that often one of us is the butterfly flapping that creates a storm on the other side of the world, and that we all participate in transmitting it. I don’t think anyone’s at fault for that, but I believe it exists.
Rachael Stein says
1. I feel like I have to strike a balance between my public librarian opinion, which is always in support of the hard work of the committee, and my private reader opinion, which sometimes isn’t.
2. That being said, The Penderwicks and A Drowned Maiden’s Hair were shafted. Shafted! 😛
Jonathan Hunt says
THE PENDERWICKS was robbed–robbed I tell you! My wife was so pissed!
Nina Lindsay says
Yeah, see, that’s what makes horse races.
Genevieve says
Books that I thought were terrific in 2007: The Higher Power of Lucky (my son and I were so happy when it won), Rules (ditto), A Drowned Maiden’s Hair, The Penderwicks. I still haven’t read Penny From Heaven and Hattie Big Sky, so I can’t speak to them, but I was glad to see 2 of my 4 favorites get recognized
Genevieve says
A Green Glass Sea was really wonderful too. But A Drowned Maiden’s Hair was the one I was most surprised to see unawarded – it was just spectacular (even if I loved The Penderwicks more).
Jonathan Hunt says
And just to clarify THE PENDERWICKS was actually from the previous year, my year. Blame me. 🙁