Hey, Old Friends: Part 2
When I started my list of sequels this year, it grew so rapidly that I decided to focus on sequels of Newbery-winning books, but there are some other high profile sequels as well, and a couple of them have already creeped into our discussion.
COMPLETELY CLEMENTINE by Sara Pennypacker . . . This is the seventh and final Clementine book and fans of the series have been a small, but vocal presence on this blog over the life of the series. Admittedly, I’ve only read one book in full (not the first one, unfortunately) and have read bits and pieces of a couple of others, and I’m still in the middle of this one so I’m not the best advocate. I will say that I do like this one better than fellow transitional chapter book contender DORY AND THE REAL TRUE FRIEND, but I also have my eye on THE PRINCESS IN BLACK AND THE PERFECT PRINCESS PARTY.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING by Jeanne Birdsall . . . I’m a fan of this series (and have to work really hard not to allow my natural affinity for these characters to cloud my judgement). The big jump in time from the first three books effectively serves as a reboot and allows new-to-the-series readers to jump into this series midstream. I find all the literary elements here distinguished; I’m just not sure that they’re most distinguished. Like THE WAR THAT SAVED MY LIFE and GONE CRAZY IN ALABAMA, this is a book that I would consider for a nomination, but that I’m not quite sure it makes it onto my ballot without some rereading, reflection, and persuasive discussion.
THE TROUBLE IN ME by Jack Gantos . . . Gantos describes this autobiographical novel as a prequel to HOLE IN MY LIFE which won both a Printz Honor and a Sibert Honor. Since the Norvelt books–DEAD END IN NORVELT and FROM NORVELT TO NOWHERE–and the Jack Henry books–both middle grade–are also semi-autobiographical, it’s hard not to see this as a sequel in spirit to those books as well. We’ve come to expect quite a bit from Gantos, and I think this one delivers for the most part, but I’m not sure that it sets the bar high enough to be a Newbery book.
The final Clementine book, the penultimate Penderwick, and Jack Gantos–who knows if we’ve seen the last of him? Do any of these deserve a closer look?
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
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
The Seven Bill That Will Safeguard the Future of School Librarianship
Book Review: Pick the Lock by A. S. King
ADVERTISEMENT
Ok, here goes. Super long comment – feel free to skip.
THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING is one of the best books I have ever read. There are two reference points that help me come to this statement: THE WESTING GAME and Harry Potter. I love THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING for the same reasons I love those books. Those reference points definitely qualify for many people as potential best books ever. And if they don’t, maybe the comparison will at least help us understand each other.
I have admitted and Nina agreed that the Penderwick sisters are arguably “simplistic.” Rosalind is the responsible one, Jane the romantic one, etc. The first chapter of The WESTING GAME right away reduces the members of its dramatis personae to a word or two each: “They were mothers and fathers and children. A dressmaker, a secretary, an inventor, a doctor, a judge. . . .” The seemingly simple characterizations continue as we get initial impressions: Doug is a jock, Turtle a brat, Angela is pretty, etc.
What we discover in THE WESTING GAME is that these are first passes not definitions. In other books, a character description can define and prescribe behavior. I might describe, for example, the key points of Micah Tuttle’s character in CIRCUS MIRANDUS as being his faith in magic and his desire to help Grandpa Ephraim. In that book, these traits seem almost to program his behavior. They dominate his unvarying response to varied situations and characters as disparate as Jenny, Aunt Gertrudis, and the Lightbender.
In contrast, like getting to know a real person, the initially simple impressions in THE WESTING GAME get fleshed out with each new encounter. We feel that the author knows the characters so completely that everything, even the smallest thing, is authentic and consistent. One of my favorite sentences in THE WESTING GAME is “’He said it’s snowing,’ Theo and Flora Baumbach explained at the same time,” (which follows “’It’ssss-oo-nn,’ Chris announced. ‘What did he say?’”) Just that. Yet the same, simple statement reveals different and complicated facets of two “minor” characters.
THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING is a similarly triumphant feat of characterization. Like Raskin, Birdsall realizes character is interaction and that a true depiction shows varied not programmed responses to different situations and people. We may think we know Skye, for example, and so I love how her relationship with each of the younger Penderwick siblings manifests differently yet all reflect her essential Skye-ness.
“Nariz,” said Lydia, again touching Skye’s nose.
Skye opened her eyes. “And where is my boca?”
Lydia touched Skye’s mouth, then her own. “Boca.”
. . . . Yawning, she [Skye] carefully took off the wrapping, making a fuss about each of Lydia’s squiggles, and when she got to the sweatshirt, she loved it as much as Ben had known she would. . . .
“Umm¬–“ [Batty]
“What?” [Skye]
The interactions are simple, almost trivial, but you could not swap any character for any other, just as you could not swap a real person for any other. And it’s not like Skye always acts the same way to, say, Ben. One moment she may use him as soccer target practice. The next she may say, and it’s clear she will never say this to any other person, “Lima-Oscar-Victor-Echo you, too, buddy.”
GONE CRAZY IN ALABAMA is quite different. There, character is pointedly shown to be formed by one’s generation and upbringing. This works wonderfully for many of the characters. But the sisters’ behaviors, compared to the first book, felt just slightly context-insensitive to me, and I was bothered by how they seemed to turn at the flip of a switch (or tornado.) I loved how in THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING no one thing (getting Jeffrey’s present, talking with her dad, etc.) turns Batty around – she has to work things out, separately, with each of the important players. Sometimes it is easy, as with Rosalind. Sometimes it’s just a start, as with Skye. As has been written of Harry Potter, we almost get the feeling the characters lead separate existences outside of what the author shows us.
Okay, so Harry Potter. THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING occupies a similar significance to the series as GOBLET OF FIRE. Before this, we had easy-to-love characters put through their paces in a series of situations. A fun sitcom, if you will, albeit with some tears. With their 4th books, the series become emotionally weightier and move to a richer place. Like Harry Potter, the Penderwicks series benefits from an author who knows from the very outset the arc of the whole thing. This of course allows obvious rewards like Jeffrey’s present to Batty, maybe even more glorious a payoff than “The Prince’s Tale” chapter in Deathly Hallows. But like Harry Potter, the effect of the author’s having the whole thing in hand is greater than that. It permeates every aspect of the book. In GOODBYE, STRANGER, a great book, one of the key tensions is Bridget’s not having crossed over to wanting a romantic relationship but being aware that perhaps she should want it. In the Penderwicks series, it is obvious (to me) that Batty will end up with Jeffrey in the epilogue of the last book. Whereas in the earlier books, this is played for laughs, when as a 4-5 year-old there are multiple references to her wanting to marry him, in this book she is almost 11 and she is not even as aware of what she might be feeling as Bridget is, making it even more poignant. Gone are thoughts or mentions of marriage, replaced with a sort of sublimated devotion to music. Only two words in the whole book betray her almost-there feelings: that one devotion is the same as another: “She’d planned to find a quiet corner from which to watch the crowd and the gaiety–and Jeffrey.” Her two scenes with Jeffrey are terribly romantic, and more so because it is not romantic to them. I know there are people who don’t like the tight authorial grip that Birdsall (and Rowling) wield. I like the utter confidence in plotting and pacing, and the trust this allows a reader to place in the author. For many, this is no small part of these books’ appeal, and I think this may be true whether one has read the previous books or not.
Like Rowling, Birdsall’s prose is not at the level of, say, Laura Amy Schlitz. But like Rowling, Birdsall almost always writes well enough (better than that, actually) and can absolutely bring the goods when she has to. I love, for example, Rowling’s perfect switch to the subjunctive mood in the last sentence of “The Prince’s Tale” chapter: “Snape might just have closed the door.” And I can’t imagine more perfect writing and pacing than when Batty opens her presents from Jeffrey. And again, it’s written to work for both newcomers who need the backstory and the fanatics who will be right with Batty remembering.
Finally, yes, THE WESTING GAME, Harry Potter, and THE PENDERWICKS are all not of the real world. They are all frankly escapist – we read them because we wish for a world and people like theirs, and they do it more successfully for more readers than just about anything else. But Nina’s point about suspension of disbelief is well-taken. These books don’t work for everybody, but I hope I have conveyed some sense of why they do inspire such fierce devotion in many readers.
What a lovely and thorough analysis. I agree that these characters are among the most developed and genuine in literature. I also felt that IN SPRING supplied a perfect entry point to the series for readers were not aware of the earlier books. It is in my top four and I will be rereading soon. Thank you for the ties to the other titles.
I have not read any of the Penderwicks, however by using 2 of my ultimate favorite books, you make me want to read them all…
I enjoyed reading this so much! As someone who came to The Penderwicks in Spring as if to a new series – having read the first volume in the series so long ago I didn’t remember it at all – I agree it’s an excellent entry point. I loved it, and I completely agree about how incredibly well-drawn the characters are.
Leonard, those are interesting comparisons that you have drawn to THE WESTING GAME and HARRY POTTER. Obviously, the sort of comparisons that we can do here, but not around the Newbery table (since we are only comparing this against books published this year). However, I think we all do compare new books to what we’ve read before. To my mind, I see strong similarities to the work of Edward Eager and Elizabeth Enright. There is a nostalgic element to this appeal for adults, but the text does not depend on that nostalgia to work for a child audience. Betsy Bird recently described THE HIRED GIRL as being a perfect read alike for LITTLE WOMEN or ANNE OF GREEN GABLES. There is something wholesome and old-fashioned (in the good sense of the word) about both books.
On another note: I see that AUGGIE AND ME by R.J. Palacio consists of three previously published short stories (published as e-books, but still). So . . . I think this is ineligible. Not that I’ve seen people lobbying for this one anywhere, although it just came out in the past month or so. WONDER still dominates the bestseller lists.
Generally, I agree that the Penderwicks compare somewhat well to Elizabeth Enright and Edward Eager (without the magic), but The Penderwicks in Spring has a lot more emotional depth and character development than those books.
Late comment, but goodness, that makes me choke. Penderwicks in Spring is great, but Elizabeth Enright is chock full of emotional depth (particularly in Then There Were Five and Spiderweb for Two), and her character development leaves the Penderwicks far behind (as I’ve no doubt Birdsall would be the first to proclaim).
It was an unfortunate comparison on my part, then, in my enthusiasm for the latest Penderwicks and how much more developed the characters became. I was thinking of the earlier Melendy Quartet books – I don’t recall much from Then There Were Five, and I’m not sure I ever read Spiderweb for Two.
I found COMPLETELY CLEMENTINE to be an outstanding capstone to a consistently remarkable series. I can’t speak to how it stands alone, but the characterization and respect for the experiences of childhood remain spot-on. Based on its recent Newbery track record I wouldn’t expect to see it with a shiny sticker come January, but if there were an award that focused on serving those younger elementary readers it would deserve the top spot.
Leonard’s analysis of THE PENDERWICKS IN SPRING is lovely and spot-on. I completely agree; it’s my personal favorite for the award this year. I loved COMPLETELY CLEMENTINE too, but I’d have to give it another reading before I could really make a case for its distinguished elements. Have not yet tried the Gantos.
I’m will also need to revisit CLEMENTINE. It stood out to me on my first go around, but I devoured it so quickly I can”t talk about particulars, which also might be indicative of weather it deserves to be here.