Listen, Slowly (and Carefully)
I typically read one book at a time, occasionally two books at a time, but when I read for an award committee, I feel the pressure to always be reading, and so I will often have three to four books going on at the same time, constantly picking up books and putting them down throughout the year. I’ve often had the opportunity to pick up a book that wasn’t working for me previously only to be enchanted on a second chance. What happened? It’s hard to say. Was I simply in the right mood? Did I have fewer distractions? Was I able to read the book in bigger chunks? Was I less worried about what had happened just prior or just after my reading session?
There’s nothing that I enjoy more than reading the physical book, but increasingly I find the necessity of taking advantage of e-books and audiobooks to mitigate the reading load. It’s harder to do the close reading that award committee reading demands on an e-book reader. You really do need to be able to move back and forth through the text with greater facility, especially if your note-taking process demands it. I personally find audiobooks an acquired taste. My attention tends to wander more often than I’d like, especially because I listen to them during my commute. I’m also hard of hearing and have to exert even more attention than a normal person, especially if the book has accents. Nevertheless, I’ve been able to do a significant chunk of my Heavy Medal reading via audiobooks.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
But given this line in the Newbery criteria–
The book must be a self-contained entity, not dependent on other media (i.e., sound or film equipment) for its enjoyment.
–we should be very careful about “reading” with e-books and audiobooks. I’d definitely want to have one reading of the book completed before trying one of these alternative formats, and I’d want to make sure my discussion at the table was focused on the book rather than the format. Given the fatigue and ennui that can set in when you’re reading an overwhelming amount of books, a different format can give you another entry point into a book you’re struggling with and give you a greater appreciation for one that you already like.
LISTEN, SLOWLY by Thanhha Lai is the follow-up to the Newbery Honor book, INSIDE OUT & BACK AGAIN. By most accounts, this is a well written book with good characters that loses its way during the middle stretch of the plot. I’d probably agree with that assessment, but I became so enraptured by the narrator who perfectly captured the voice of the young main character, but could also segue with ease to the accented speech of older generations, not to mention the Vietnamese words and phrases which on the page might appear strange and foreign but had a pleasing musicality. If the plot stalled in the middle of the book, the audiobook helped me realize that it was important for this girl to absorb the physical experience of her homeland, not just the sensory experiences, but the people and their culture; it provided needed contrast to the Americanization of the preteen narrator. And it helped me to realize that I would probably read this book very differently from a Vietnamese-American child.
The audiobook may not have convinced me that this is the most distinguished book of the year, but it helped me to appreciate the strengths that other people might see in the book, and it helped me to filter out my Jonathan-centric reading of it.
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
How to Do Just About Everything in 2025
Good Golden Sun: A Conversation with Brendan Wenzel
MegaGhost Vol. 1 | Review
When Book Bans are a Form of Discrimination, What is the Path to Justice?
The Necessity for Marginalized Stories Today and Always, a guest post by Wahab Algarmi
ADVERTISEMENT
I think it’s a shame that the Newbery guidelines make it so that you (very understandably) feel the need to put “reading” in quotes when referring to audio versions of books for children. This means the award doesn’t truly represent the 20% of kids with reading issues who would, most likely, be able to enjoy the book more (and in some cases, enjoy in the only way they possibly can) with an audiobook. And since many teachers read middle grade books aloud – how many children first hear Charlotte’s Web that way, I wonder? – I fail to see how an audiobook experience is so different from how we approach great books already. I’m not in any way criticizing your post, by the way, since you’re referring to the rules. Still, if we want to have classrooms and libraries that promote literacy for all kids… the rules seem to me to create a situation where we’re dismissive of anyone who doesn’t “read” the way we want them to.
I find it really helpful to read promising books aloud. There is something about those words in the mouth that helps to highlight notable writing for me. For instance, my 4th graders are absolutely besotted with Unusual Chickens which I’m currently reading aloud to them. It is helping me figure out how it might be worthy of this award.
Thinking more about the reading/listening issue.
I listen to mostly adult books as a way to keep those into my reading life. What is good and bad for me is that listening forces me to slow down (I’m a very fast reader). This is great when the book, to my mind, is gorgeously written, but not so great when there is stuff that is weak for me. For example, years ago I remember listening to the sixth Harry Potter book (the rare audio kid book for me) in preparation for the publication final book. I’d read it before, but listening really brought out Rowling’s overuse of certain words (they sure were doing a lot of sniggering) and the adverbs (oy!). Currently I’ve been working my way through Connie Willis’s time travel books and the plot coincidences are driving me nuts (I’ve been told this stylistic — maybe like Christie? — but it sure bugs me). I wonder if they wouldn’t bother nearly as much if I was reading the books.
I have to disagree with you, Greg, in questioning privileging of the written word over the audible for the Newbery. I actually do think the experiences are significantly different. When you read the words on the page it is a contract between the reader and the writer. My kids are getting a different experience with EXCEPTIONAL CHICKENS with me reading it to them than if they read it on their own without my mediating the experience. Jonathan’s listening experience with Thanhha Lai’s book is different from what it would have been if he read it in the traditional way. Audio books are performances. Reading aloud is one too. (I was part of a panel this past week at Lincoln Center about performances of Alice in Wonderland and it came out clearly that when I read the book to my students that is as much as an interpretative performance as the various musical and theatrical ones also discussed.) The narrator is important, a mediator for the text. That isn’t there when you or a child engages directly with the book.
Monica – yes, they’re different experiences on some level. Still, if we tell kids “hey, audiobooks are great! It’s the way for YOU to access text. We support you!!!! It’s just that you wouldn’t possibly be able to pick out the best written books but really, honest, seriously, you’re not different than everyone else in the classroom.” we’re telling them a rather mixed message, don’t you think?
Or put another way, what you’re saying is that the Newbery is not for diverse readers. It’s for the ones who were born with a specific type of brain wiring – those “privileged” in a sense to be born “well-off.”
What I’m suggesting is that this is a hidden, underlying slant that sends a message that anything else other than reading via eye each word of text is inferior, not just different. And since one of biggest hurdles many dyslexics and other struggling readers face is shame, I don’t think this is the message we want to send. I don’t know how to fix it, exactly, as I know there’s no bad intent involved nor any easy solution since it’s about a whole way of thinking, not just a word or two. But it’s pretty clear that there’s a diminishment here, unintentional or not.
No, I did not say that “the Newbery is not for diverse readers” nor anything else you are attributing to me in your first paragraph.
I read the ink-and-paper book of LISTEN, SLOWLY and did not at all notice any pacing or plotting issues in the middle. Of course, I was just reading for enjoyment, so perhaps a second read would point them out to me.
Same here – in fact, I thought it was fantastic, particularly the voice.
Greg, I think you are leaping to conclusions that nobody has drawn. Just because I personally would be cautious about using the audiobooks as a stand-in for reading the book, doesn’t necessarily mean that all committee members would. In any case, the discussion at the table must focus on the book that everybody has read as opposed to the audiobook that everybody has not. And, of course, non-committee readers are always free to enjoy the book in whatever format they choose.
ALSC does have an award for audibooks that it co-sponsors with YALSA: The Odyssey Award. Check it out. Also check out “As Good As Reading” by Pamela Varley, an old Horn Book article, but still a good one.
http://reading-interventions-info.wikispaces.com/file/view/audiobook+article.pdf
I seemed to reply to myself instead of you. My comment is after my other one… which is good, as yours helps clarify what I’m driving at. My conclusions are drawn from the fact that both you and Monica, both of whom I respect deeply, feel it is important to read the written text word by word visually. Data set of two points, but also one I’ve heard elsewhere. I’d love to hear from committee members who feel that audiobooks alone are fine, though.
Hi, Monica – I can’t leave a reply to your reply. To clarify – by diverse readers in my comment, I mean people who read in diverse ways – let’s call it reading by ear, in this case. And in fact, the Newbery rules (and therefore you since you’re the only one engaging) as interpreted by Jonathan in the post above say that’s not a valid way to judge the Newbery: Only by visually reading word by word can we find the best book. To me, that’s false – saying that listening to a book and analyzing its quality/content means IT is dependent on another medium is not the same as saying THE READER is dependent on another medium. This is a critical distinction.
In other words, do we want the books we celebrate wildly in schools – look for the sticker! – to come from a place that says “yes, but if you happen to only be able to access text by listening, you couldn’t help us pick this because that’s not what this is about. Enjoy the audiobook anyway!”?
Perhaps this is all about terminology – is it reading or literacy or what, exactly, that we should focus on and define. But when the rules make it so that audiobooks are “reading” as opposed to reading, why should we be surprised that kids who struggle with text and need audio often also struggle with feeling different and frequently “less than” their text-reading peers?
Hi, Jonathan – the Odyssey focuses on the production/performance so it also makes the distinction away from story/analysis. Certainly it’s easy to see how that makes sense – it’s a different medium and the award is for a different thing. Still, it’s distinct from story and analysis and the reading of the text, so it’s not actually the same conversation as the Newbery one.
My concern is that this bleeds down into the classroom and library in subtle ways that really do impact individuals. If we talk about modeling… how does this fit in? I understand why the Newbery rules say you have to talk about the book that everybody has read rather than the audiobook performance. But my question then is if I only listen to the audiobook, a full word-for-word reading of the book, have I read it?
Greg, thanks for continuing to clarify your point. I agree that in the classroom, privileging the written word over the heard one sends the wrong message. I’m not a teacher; but I imagine this is very difficult, since a major part of the teacher’s job is teaching kids “written word” literacy to a certain standard.
The distinction of reading the written text within the criteria is mostly relevant for the committee members, I think, along the lines of what Jonathan and Monica have been arguing. I wonder if others who use the award-winning books really perceive it this way though. I don’t think the award trumpets itself as “written word only!” to the public, through the announcement and its sticker. Most audiobook versions of the Newbery award winners do carry the sticker, and I can browse at Listening Library by the award (http://www.booksontape.com/listening-library/browse/awards/49956/newbery-medals/). Any edition of the book must be licensed to carry the sticker, with permission from (and $ to) ALSC, and they recently paved the way for electronic formats to be eligible to carry the sticker too.
I still take your point; and I think your last question, “If I only listen to the audiobook….have I read it?” can also apply to how we “read” graphic novels.
Thanks, Nina. I am still trying to clarify, and I don’t know that I’ve gotten there yet. I find that when I’m in seeming disagreement with folks like Monica, it can be because of miscommunication rather than ideas. Who’s that can go both ways, I know it can be me: to wit, Monixa hasn’t said you can’t listen only and judge the Newbery. I apologize for mid-stating that and assuming that based on my reading of comments. Maybe I shoulda listened to them instead 🙂
Still, I’m also aware that there are mixed messages constantly being sent about reading, and that some come from subtle biases ingrained “culturally” for lack of a better term. And if there concern by an adult about “reading” tone part of a conversation, I am sure that is echoed by kids in classrooms. Not all classrooms. But still….
I appreciate everyone engaging in this convo to help me clarify.
Interesting conversation. (Greg, my previous irritated comment was due to the way you wrote your response, not what it was. You wrote, “what you’re saying is ….” and I wanted to make it crystal clear that I don’t want anyone putting words into my mouth online.:)
When it comes to the classroom and how children learn to read, to engage with story — I think there is much to consider about different ways of reading, be it through ears, eyes, etc. However, I still feel strongly that audio books have an additional filter that reading the book visually does not — that is, the performance of the narrator. Indeed, Nina makes the good point of equating it with reading graphic novels. Last year I worked hard to show that El Deafo could be considered distinguished without attending to the art. This year Selznick’s The Marvels offers an even greater challenge as half the story is totally in images.
It is interesting to consider what the place of the voice actor is in the presentation of a story through an audible presentation. I guess you could make a case for it as being similar to that of an illustrator for a picture book. But then, in the Newbery’s case, Committee members are not to give attention to art unless it “detracts.” I think it would be very hard to ignore a response to an audio performance. What if you disliked the voice? The cadence? The background music? For the Newbery, as with illustration and design, that would all need to be set aside. Frankly, I can’t imagine being on the Committee and only listening to a contender.
My comment was unhelpful and inelegant, and I apologize for putting words in your pen/mouth.
I agree, too, that audio is a different experience. (Of course, we study Shakespeare’s plays as literature, and they “should” be heard. A different convo, I suppose?) Still, I think we become good at separating performance from content. To wit, I know people who LOVE books read to them by computer voices only, certainly not a good performance. At the same time, I grant that the “wrong” narrator can drive us away from a book. Then again, so can annoying layout. No doubt, some are annoyed by different fonts, too. And so it goes.
All that aside, I guess what I go back to is that if you and Jonathan wouldn’t feel comfortable listening to a book and then being part of the Newbery committee conversation, it follows that many kids in many classrooms feel the same way during literature conversations. They are left feeling that what they’ve done is just not what is really expected or needed. It’s not enough. Sure, the classroom isn’t the Committee… but I’d argue the pressures are worse and the results of that pressure are longer lasting.
Again, maybe it’s all semantics of what “reading” is, and it certainly depends on the classrooms and individual kids. But overall, my experience is that we focus on word-for-word text reading as what’s important in endless ways, even while trying to encourage other ways to access material. To me it’s “It’s good enough for you, kids. But not for adults at high level conversations of the best book of the year.” How should kids parse that? And how can we change or clarify that?
I, too, very much enjoyed LISTEN, SLOWLY, and did not notice these flaws. I was actually rather surprised, as I had not enjoyed INSIDE OUT. I’m not sure what made the difference, but LISTEN
SLOWLY is on my top five list (at least right now). The characters seemed so right, and the plot seemed to move appropriately – I could not put the book down. Hopefully I’ll make time to reread it but the stack seems to grow and grow!
You know I went back and read the reviews of LISTEN SLOWLY to see where I had read complaints about it, and I couldn’t find them in the journal reviews, but it was from Betsy Bird’s blurb on one of her Newbery/Cadlecott predictions–
“Tricky one. On the one hand the story is great, the characters vivid, the setting a character in and of itself, and some of the prose just heartbreakingly lovely. On the down side, it’s got a couple scenes that could have been cut down or out. There’s a confusing love triangle that serves no apparent purpose, and a dentist/moped sequence that I had to read and reread a couple times to myself to understand. To win a Newbery this book will have to overcome these elements. Then again, it stays with you long after you put it down. Funny to mention it after Goodbye, Stranger too. One book contains a lacy bra, and this book contains a plethora of thongs.”
Ah yes, the THONGS. As I previewed this book over the summer the thongs alone were enough to make me cut it from the list for my 3rd-5th grade readers, which was disappointing. I know I probably sound like an old schoolmarm, but I couldn’t really picture how those conversations with parents would come out well. On the other hand, I kept GOODBYE STRANGER on the list. When I call parents about that, they often welcome the chance to discuss the issues that arise in it with their kids. Does this make LISTEN any less Newbery worthy? I’m sure it doesn’t, but it still seems worth mentioning, as part of its overall contribution to children’s literature.
Greg, I agree with much of what you’ve said except this–
“I guess what I go back to is that if you and Jonathan wouldn’t feel comfortable listening to a book and then being part of the Newbery committee conversation, it follows that many kids in many classrooms feel the same way during literature conversations.”
I actually don’t think it follows; the two things are completely separate things that have no correlation.
The more I think about it, the more I’m not sure that printed books are dependent on audiobooks for their enjoyment; they’re sort of parallel experiences. An audiobook reading is better than no reading and if you give a book multiple readings there is no reason that audiobooks cannot be one of those. The discussion can reference the read aloud qualities of a book–I certainly think it would be impossible to give something like GOOD MASTERS! SWEET LADIES! the Medal without that acknowledgement–but the discussion has to center of the content rather than the format.
Jonathan – perhaps “it follows” is not ideal wording since it’s not a correlation, as you note. How about, “you could see why…” since it’s a pretty good parallel situation.
I know some of these kids personally, in case it isn’t clear by now. And I know adults who were these kids. They’re the ones who listen to a book but still feel that they then can’t comfortably participate in the conversations about the book because really, in the end, despite what we say…we default to the need for text reading. Which, again, I find unsurprising since we’re sitting here discussing whether the Newbery criteria is about the words in a book and the impact of them on the recipient OR whether it has to do with the impact of them via the recipient’s experience reading it textually.
I went back to my notes on this book and, despite loving it overall, correctly recalled that the plot occasionally slows down– for example, an excruciatingly detailed description of the procedure of making morning tea.
I always got the impression that the actual Newbery discussion can be incredibly detailed, with committee members coming prepared with page references for passages supporting whatever points they’re going to make. Close analysis can be hard without something non-transient to refer to. To make an analogy to music, there should be no shame whatsoever in anybody experiencing and appreciating and reacting to music without reading a score. (And certainly many more people have difficulty reading music compared to words.) And it is certainly possible just by ear to separate responses to a performer’s interpretation from the underlying music being interpreted. Yet there are certain kinds of analyses that are nearly impossible to perform without a written text handy. And yes this can privilege certain kinds of music (classical) over other genres that don’t fit so comfortably in musical notation.
Anyway, with a new job with a long commute, I’ve also started listening to audiobooks. Some books that I want to scrutinize more closely, yes, I will go back to the written text. Others, I do think the audiobook was sufficient and I don’t feel compelled to go again with the written text unless I had to pick out a specific passage or something.
One of the comments on my comment about The War That Saved My Life was really fascinating to me: I had pointed out what to me is a flaw in that I found no British flavor in the writing (word choice, dialogue, etc) in a book where the setting was quite important. The person who responded to my comment had listened to the audiobook, which is apparently narrated by a British actress, and so did not have the same experience. This reminded me of those late-show hijinks where they get someone with a phenomenal voice and presence like Alan Rickman or James Earl Jones to read something banal–and make it sound wonderful. And we’ve all seen great actors do great things in movies that were otherwise not very good. So I think it is important to realize that with an audiobook, performance is part of what we’re responding to, which is why I’m glad to hear that awards committees (so far) seem to be tasked with coming to the book first as a physical book, and then employ other media on later readings only.
I’m glad the discussion of LISTEN SLOWLY is linked to audio books. I’ve read the text copy and thoroughly enjoyed the voice and characters and it made me fall in love with Vietnam. (Also very hungry for the world’s best cuisine.) I also didn’t find a problem with the pacing but then I’m a character driven reader. I can see that some plot points may run amok. The ending was lovely. I found the thong sewing circle hilarious! Very illuminating of Mia’s character.
Because I am hopelessly phonetically handicapped, I’ve purchased the audio in the hopes of fully experiencing the nuances of the language. I felt the audio would actually give me a greater appreciation of this book. I haven’t take the opportunity to listen to it yet, but plan to as my reading of this title.
Hi everyone! I know it’s been a while since we’ve had any discussion on this book, but yesterday at the Mocks in Cincinnati (a collaborative between the Lane Libraries-north of Cincinnati-and the Public Library of Cinci and Hamilton Cty) this book pretty much mopped the floor with the other contenders, which were:
* Stonewall, by Ann Bausum
* Stella by Starlight, by Sharon Draper
* The Boys Who Challenged Hitler, by Philip Hoose
* Gone Crazy in Alabama, by Rita Williams-Garcia
* The Story of Diva and Flea, by Mo Willems
We normally have 60ish people at our event, so voting has never been COMPLETELY legit by Newbery standards… we never expect to follow the voting rules to a tee (i.e., 1 more than half of the 1st place votes going to a book, the point differential between 1st and 2nd place books being at least 1 more than half of the number of voters, and keep voting until you achieve these two conditions) but yesterday, for the first time ever, we had that situation occur. Lai’s book received 26 of 51 1st place votes and had 47 more points than the second place book (The Boys Who Challenged Hitler, which we chose as our lone Honor).
For what it’s worth, I’d like to share one part of our discussion: the infamous moped/dentist bit in Hanoi. We came to a consensus that Lai did this purposefully to keep the reader off balance in an attempt to show how Mia herself was feeling in perhaps the biggest situation of culture shock she faced in the entire book. She was confused at what was going on, and so Lai made that sequence confusing. Same with the pacing issues that some mentioned: this was a choice made to echo the rather more leisurely pace of Vietnamese culture compared to the Valley Girl life Mia was used to.
I went in to the discussion a fan of this book and came out an even bigger one; it’s now firmly in my top 5. I highly recommend attending a Mock Newbery in person at some point, and most importantly to go into discussions with an open mind.
I’ve only listened to the audiobook, but LISTEN, SLOWLY was a bit of a surprise for me, given that I didn’t particularly care for the author’s first book, INSIDE OUT & BACK AGAIN. That coupled with some mixed reviews I had read, really lowered my expectations. Boy, was I wrong! The book still lingers in my mind, and I question whether we shouldn’t have included it our our own shortlist. Earlier, I listed these as my top five–HIRED GIRL, ECHO, MOST DANGEROUS, DROWNED CITY, and SENECA VILLAGE–and I’d have to add GONE CRAZY IN ALABAMA and (pending a reread) LISTEN, SLOWLY to round out my top seven nominations. That is, if I had to submit them all at once.
Funny you mentioned your lowered expectations based on INSIDE OUT & BACK AGAIN, Jonathan… that also won our Mock Newbery the year it came out, and I *did* like it… but I wasn’t wowed by it like some. So I went into LISTEN, SLOWLY with some trepidation. But it certainly did wow me.
By the way, did you read the Guys Read collection (True Stories) that came out last year? Lai’s contribution to it (an essay about her childhood, growing up with several brothers) is one of the highlights: it is an absolute riot!
That Guys Read was an excellent collection! The Sheinkin story is fantastic and the Nathan Hale comic is the same story that DiCaprio’s new movie.