Our Shortlist!
The genesis of this blog was as a discussion platform to build a shortlist for the Mock Newbery discussion I’ve held in Oakland CA for the past (gulp) 11 years.This year we will get together on Sunday January 11th, from 12:30-5pm. Email me if you’d like further details. (Jonathan will hold a Mock Discussion in San Diego as well, date TBA). On that afternoon, having read every book on the shortlist, we’ll replicate the process of the actual Newbery committee to determine our Mock Medalist and Honor books.
Jonathan and I assemble a list of eight titles that we assume are eligible, and which we feel are distinguished under the Newbery criteria. We limit ourselves to books published no later than October so that you can actually get your hands on them and read them in time. And we try to represent the diversity of types of books eligible for the award. There are a good handful of your Top 5 that you don’t see here, and that’s not the last we’ll hear of them…we just weren’t convinced. Those who’ve seen our lists before may be surprised this year not to see some of the less-expected formats that we often try to include, and more on that later. Meanwhile, here are our eight titles, all outstanding in some way, and certainly different in style, approach, and audience. Start reading.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
BROWN GIRL DREAMING by Jacqueline Woodson
First alphabetically, and, we hope, a no brainer?
THE CROSSOVER by Kwame Alexander
This is a great example of a clearly distinguished book with flaws. No Newbery winner is perfect, the question is always whether on balance, and in comparison to others, it still rises to the top. The voice and form here are absolutely standout.
THE FAMILY ROMANOV by Candace Fleming
From the last post, we’ll clearly have plenty to talk about. This one tackles the audience age question, among others.
THE KEY THAT SWALLOWED JOEY PIGZA by Jack Gantos
Maybe you didn’t see that one coming? This is our “left field” candidate, the one that doesn’t sound like your “typical” Newbery, whatever that is. Give it a second go, and we think you’ll see what we do.
MADMAN OF THE PINEY WOODS by Christopher Paul Curtis
The discussion on this title earlier barely got started; I know there are defenders out there. This title doesn’t work if you don’t care for a meandering narrator, so if that is you, “reader, know thyself.”
THE PORT CHICAGO 50 by Steve Sheinkin
The “Nina vs Jonathan Nonfiction Smackdown” or “Can Two Nonfiction Books Ever Place for Newbery in the Same Year?” candidate.
REVOLUTION by Deborah Wiles
This is the one title on the list that neither Jonathan nor I are totally willing to champion yet. However, you’ve all convinced us that it at least belongs at this discussion.
WEST OF THE MOON by Margi Preus
There’s a myth out there that late fall books do better at the Newbery table because you don’t have time to grow disillusioned with them. The counter-argument is that strong spring books give you time to plum all their flaws and still find them distinguished.
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
Surprise! Announcing 1000 HORSES FOR THE KING
Fuse 8 n’ Kate: Wee Winnie Witch’s Skinny by Virginia Hamilton, ill. Barry Moser
The Night Mother | This Week’s Comics
Talking with the Class of ’99 about Censorship at their School
In School Library Journal: Good Grief: Middle Grade Authors Normalize Loss
ADVERTISEMENT
At the time of Jonathan’s tally in the Top 5 post, the top 3 were:
BROWN GIRL DREAMING (17 votes)
THE FAMILY ROMANOV (12 votes)
THE NIGHT GARDENER (11 votes)
After Jonathan’s tally, four more votes were made. THE NIGHT GARDENER was mentioned three more times while BROWN GIRL DREAMING and THE FAMILY ROMANOV were not mentioned at all. Meaning, THE NIGHT GARDENER actually pushed BROWN GIRL DREAMING for the top vote getter and only fell short by three votes.
It’s your club and I’ll have fun and follow along regardless, but for the record, I find it kind of bogus that THE NIGHT GARDENER was left out for the sake of the Pigza book. The people had spoken. Or so, I thought.
Why did you choose not to include that one?
THE KEY THAT SWALLOWED JOEY PIGZA has five starred reviews and was one of two middle grade finalists for the Kirkus Prize. Since you’ve obviously read the book and didn’t care for it, can you share what you found lacking in the book?
I agree that THE NIGHT GARDENER would have made a fine contender on our shortlist (especially since our list is so heavy on previous winners–and we know from history that most of the winners *won’t* be repeaters). Additionally, THE FOURTEENTH GOLDFISH, and any number of other titles would have done well on our shortlist. As we’ve said, we’re more about simulation here than prediction, and if we were concerned about the latter than we may well have chosen THE NIGHT GARDENER. What we encourage you–what we encourage everyone to do–is not to take our list as definitive. Go back to your schools and libraries and create your own mock Newbery, and then share the experience with us here. When you’re in charge you get to create the list. Want all middle grade fiction? Do it! Want only popular titles with kids? Do it! Want eight different variations of BECAUSE OF WINN-DIXIE? Do it! Do it! Do it!
What Jonathan said. Also what I already said in the post….I’m sure this is not the end of the NIGHT GARDENER on this blog.
Here’s a fuller response to Mr. H’s outrage, for all of you, and especially those who’re newish to this blog. I’m realizing some context might be helpful.
For us, this blog is more about process than prediction, though both are clearly at play. In crafting our discussions, and our shortlist, I’m more interested in what angle a particular book gives us to consider the award (and therefore all eligible books) than the single book itself. This is important, especially, for lurking authors to know. We treat books here both as lovingly and as roughly as we do in any professional discussion. “Tearing a book apart” at the Newbery table does NOT comment on the book’s ultimate worth to its readers. It’s a comment on the standard that we would like to set for children’s books in toto. That children deserve the best in literature, and literary criticism. They deserve everything they want to read… and everything that will move and surprise the them. What standards can we set to ensure this?
For that purpose, we hope this blog is helpful, but also all of the discussions that happen outside of this blog. It’s been intersting to me that the participants in our live discussions in Oakland, are, for the most part, not regular contributors to this blog. And, every year, I meet people who are regular lurkers, but never comment.
When we craft the shortlist, we are looking for books that will provoke good discussion about the award at our live table. For that, we must choose books that we are committed to. The mechanics of the discussion, with only 8 titles, require a champion or two or three for every title. So we have to choose titles we can champion, otherwise we waste everyone’s time.
Our live discussions are not the only discussion. Our “Top Fives” and “Top Tens” feed our shortlist, but our shortlist is never a digest of those posts. And, frankly, I don’t believe those posts suggest, as Mr. H has, that “the people have spoken.” With utmost respect for and appreciation of those of you who do comment regularly on this blog…we are NOT “the people.” We are a pretty selective group, and our amagalmated tastes tend to mirror to the buzz of the blogosphere. There is truth in there, but also chaos, and I don’t think it is professionally responsible to trust it as The Word. I’d rather look for the renegade passion based on experience with readers and books, and hear each of those opionions out. Ours is one Or two. We hope this is a platform to hear more.
It was outrage, but it wasn’t real outrage I hope you know. Although in fairness, Jonathan did say that our comments may convince you of the final book or two you added to your shortlist. When THE NIGHT GARDENER was only a few tallies short of your clearcut favorite (the Woodson), I hoped that would get it on there. Hopefully, it’s still discussed on here, as you suggest.
Honestly, all in all, I do like your shortlist. I’ve read three of them already and want to discuss as much as possible so I plan on reading the other five. Now I can read with the criteria in mind and that’s always fun, as I’ve gotten caught up in reading titles lately for pure enjoyment, not really considering the criteria. Some years, I have forced myself to read titles from your shortlists just for the sake of wanting to keep up with conversations on here. This year, all 8 of those books are books I want to read. So trust me, I’m not really complaining.
But I do love THE NIGHT GARDENER.
Hooray for having already read 6/8 of the shortlist.
If prediction were your only goal, the blog wouldn’t fair nearly as well. I appreciate the insights that you both share as former committee members. The conversation about books is what I enjoy here, and have for a number of years now.
Mr. H – I adore The Night Gardener. I hope it receives recognition at the YMAs.
I agree with Nina and Jonathan…….Brown Girll dreaming and Romanov are in a class by themselves this year…….But I do believe that BROWN GIRL DREAMING is most distinguished……
Have a great thanksgiving and I am so thankful for this Blog and all of the comments from everyone.
I have a question for those who have served on the committee, especially recently. The Newbery manual states that it was decided to “eliminate the practice of discussing books that
had been suggested but not nominated” (p.19). Suppose HOW I DISCOVERED POETRY was not nominated by any committee member, but BROWN GIRL DREAMING was. Do you think the committee would interpret this rule as simply implying HOW I DISCOVERED POETRY can’t win the award, not having been nominated, but can be brought up for comparison in the discussion of BROWN GIRL DREAMING? Or is this more like the practice on earlier books, which often seems to be interpreted here as against talking about them, even just for comparison purposes? (Even if my hypothetical scenario doesn’t happen, surely it will come up somewhere: hurricane books, Freedom Summer books, etc.)
Leonard, I think that it would be ok for the committee to compare BGD to HIDP for purposes of showing why BDG is distinguished, as long as HIDP had been on the “suggested” list earlier in the year, so that there’s an understanding that everyone had read it. Depending on the argument, as chair I might not let the comparison go on too long as it ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. If it serves to illustrate a point about BGD’s worthiness in comparison to the other nominated titles, fine. That is my take.
I think it would perfectly fine to compare the two. I agree with Nina, however. The more serious the committee is about both books, the longer the discussion on that point can last.