NBA Longlist
We’re really pleased with the range of the National Book Award longlist! These are excellent choices with lots of possibilities for Newbery overlap. Sharon and I decided to divvy up the early spring titles for September discussions, so look for posts on BOOKED, RAYMIE NIGHTINGALE, and PAX in the very near future. In the meantime, please feel free to make general comments on the NBA longlist as well as predictions about what may make the shortlist that will be announced on October 12.
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
One Star Review, Guess Who (#193)
The Quadruple Collaboration: Nikki Grimes and Brian Pinkney Discuss Jerry Pinkney and A Walk in the Woods
Superman vs. Meshi | Review
Nonfiction Round-Up: A look at Mock Newbery possibilities, from plastic straws to World War II
Book Review: Nothing Else But Miracles by Kate Albus
The Classroom Bookshelf is Moving
ADVERTISEMENT
I’ve only read BOOKED and BURN BABY BURN so far–the latter is one of my early picks for Printz recognition, but almost certainly out of Newbery’s reach. (And BOOKED was, of course, great, and I look forward to discussing it soon.)
Most of the others are on my TBR as soon as copies present themselves to me, but I feel totally burned out on RAYMIE NIGHTINGALE and PAX from hype alone. Do other folks ever feel this?
I definitely know what you mean about feeling burnt out. I am the same way with movies, TV shows (I still refuse to watch Game of Thrones) and music! With children’s books, though, I try to work through it…and DO work through it when I am considering a book for an award or list (mock or otherwise). I just pick the book up and pretend I’ve never heard a word about it, as best I can, and go in with no expectations. I know. Not truly possible, but I do my best.
It’s hard, though, isn’t it?
Ha, I think you’ve named part of it for me–I’m serving on a different (non-confidential) committee right now, so I use my store of expectation-resetting goodwill on the books I need to read for that, and for actual projects at work. (Either of which could come to include those two books, in which case I’ll read them with an open mind!)
Once we’re just spitballing on the Internet, though, I can use all the posts and comments about books I haven’t read to help me develop my booktalks without (sometimes ever) giving in to reading everything… and comments like Joe’s below help me prioritize, too.
I’m burned out on PAX. I was not very wowed by it at all.
RAYMIE, though, I loved.
But hype does tend to kill my overall enjoyment of a book. (In fact, I think it was the hype behind PAX that made me think, “Uh, I don’t get it.” after reading the book.)
I am the opposite. I have read PAX twice through, and it only got better to me. I loved it. So many examples within it of powerful writing.
RAYMIE is the one I’m trying to slog through now. It’s not interesting to me. It’s sad and quirky and not my thing, but I’m trying. I see the strong qualities of the writing from time to time, I’m just not sure it’s as “distinguished” as others.
Personal preferences! Can’t wait to start dissecting the books!
I read an ARC of PAX in January — and loved it so much! Hadn’t heard any hype yet except the blurbs on the ARC. I admit I’m already a Pennypacker fan… but I thought Pax was exceptional.
I am DELIGHTED by this list!!
I’ve read three of the books and am foaming at the mouth for the new Grace Lin title. Can’t wait to read it. Also looking forward to reading Ghost (alas, there’s a wait list at the library).
I read Raymie Nightingale last spring and felt Newbery goosebumps. I marveled at how DiCamillo can turn a phrase that means so much and has so many layers. I took many notes on passages that I found exceptional. Then I read Booked and I was amazed in totally different ways. I can’t decide which one rates higher on my list so far and I look forward to the discussions of both here. I wanted to love Pax, perhaps due to the hype or due to my affection for Pennypacker, but I was disappointed. I jumped up and down and danced in circles when I saw that When the Sea Turned to Silver is coming this fall. I’ve pre-ordered and am waiting anxiously (Where the Mountain Meets the Moon is one of my very favorites). I’m sure March Book 3 will be as excellent as its predecessors have been, but I don’t think it will stand alone in terms of the Newbery criteria as it is very clearly the conclusion of a trilogy. Are any of the other NBA longlist titles Newbery Contenders? I’m still trying to find and acquire everything “worthy” for my Newbery Club which starts in a few weeks.
There is nothing in the Newbery criteria that says a series books needs to stand alone, (HIGH KING, GREY KING). I do believe the intended audience for MARCH was adult, however. Although, I’ve been adding to my elementary collection.
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve written about RAYMIE. I’m looking forward to how my students respond to it in Mock Newbery. One eager kid already read it and returned it with a shrug and a “meh”. I wonder if others will follow suit…
BOOKED, unfortunately fell flat for me. If you’re interested, I wrote a review on Goodreads for it here that pretty much expresses my issues with it: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1620627084?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1
And I’m with you on SEA -> SILVER. I heart Grace Lin so very much and have held the others in the series close to my heart. Let’s hope SEA caps it all off nicely. (I can’t imagine it won’t.)
Still as crazy about RAYMIE as the first day I read it. I sincerely hope the Newbery committee doesn’t burn out on a book before they pick it up. Sometimes hype is deserved.
GHOST has recently moved to the top of my Newbery list, pretty ridiculously delighted to see it here.
Me too, me too. GHOST shot to the top of my Newbery list as soon as I read it.
I just finished GHOST last night, and it too has moved to the top of my Newbery list – though it may be tied with SOME KIND OF COURAGE which I have been gushing over since it came out. I must have read PAX before the hype, because I hadn’t heard much about it when I picked it up. I loved it, but I’ve been blown away by so many books since then, that it has moved down my list considerably. It’s been a great year so far!
It’s nice to see Some Kind of Courage getting some love. It’s on my Newbery shortlist along with Pax (and What Elephants Know).
Still looking forward to reading Ghost and Sachiko.
When we get to the point where we look at both SOME KIND OF COURAGE and PAX, both stories where a boy searches for his lost ‘kindred spirit animal’, the flatness of the character in SKOC will crumble next to both the Pennypacker leads. I am happy to have a western in the mix for my students, but can’t take SKOC seriously criteria wise.
I can’t wait to have that conversation, because for me Joseph is one of the most memorable
characters I’ve read this season, especially in a read-aloud context. In terms of male characters, I felt the tender relationship between Joseph and Ah-Kee was something unique and beautifully done. However, Ghost’s voice and authenticity may have just moved SKOC down a notch in my book. PAX shined thematically, but I felt the story lacked subtlety, and the dialogue a little heavy handed – rather the moral was almost hammered on the reader. Considering the complexity of the story, I felt Pennypacker could have trusted her audience a little more to infer rather than having to emphasize her point over and over again. Let the discussions begin!
We are going to need to disagree about Joseph. I could be tainted by the fact that I listened to the audio. By the millionth time he “my-sarahed’ my gag reflex was on high alert. Also, I appreciate time period vernacular as much as the next guy, but I reckon it may have been plum, way-yonder, too heavy handed for it not to seem overly showy and too conscious . Overall, I found Joseph too noble, too modern in his sensibilities to other races for the times, and too un-complex to feel genuine. And my eyeballs got downright dirty when they rolled out of my head at the ending.
As for PAX, it has been a really long time. Mostly I remember how impressive the fox sections were. I’m going to need to reread to see if it’s one I would champions. Others have knocked it further down.
SOME KIND OF COURAGE is my favorite read of the year! I’m not going to get into too much of an argument when comparing it to PAX because I love both! But I would argue that for the intended audience, crafting a “western” for this generation of kids, the way-yonderness of the narrative might have been necessary. Did it accomplish what it set out to do as well as PAX did?
I read SOME KIND OF COURAGE and PAX both aloud to a class of 5th graders. By the end of SKOC, I had 5th grade boys sobbing uncontrollably at the thought of (SPOILER)… losing Sarah … (END OF SPOILER). Literally, sobbing uncontrollably and not hiding it. PAX was enjoyed by all, thrilling in a way, but didn’t get at the same emotions as SKOC. At least for my kids. Gotta stand for something.
Remember the audience…
You said “remember the audience” but, I’m not sure where you are seeing emotional response of the audience as part of the criteria. The criteria regarding the audience only involves “excellence of presentation for a child (0-14) audience” or excellence in displaying “respect for children’s understandings, abilities, and appreciations”.
When I read the criteria I see:
-Interpretation of the theme or concept
-Presentation of information including accuracy, clarity, and organization
-Development of a plot
-Delineation of characters
-Delineation of a setting
-Appropriateness of style
None of these are about the auidence’s (child or adult reader) response (emotional or otherwise) to the book. There’s also nothing here about the story that is being told. Instead the criteria are about how the story is told. The story seems irrelevant to the criteria. Therefore the sobbing of your 5th graders is only relvant if the sobbing is evidence of distiction in interepretaiton of theme, development of plot (NOT story), delineation of characters, delineation of setting, appropriateness of style, and presentation of information.
I believe it works great for the age range. In fact I nominated it last night for our state Beehive long list,. But it does not hold up to Newbery criteria, in my ‘reckoning’.
Though the emotional reaction of the audience is not explicitly outlined in the criteria, I think such a dramatic response from the intended audience is strong evidence of distinguished work in several criterion listed – specifically (in my opinion) “development of plot,” “delineation of character,” and “excellence in presentation.” Knowing how difficult it can be to elicit such an emotional response from a middle-grade crowd, the reaction from Mr. H’s students, and from what I’ve heard, students across the country, says something about Gemeinhart’s craft.
Obviously, this argument can’t be used by the committee, and for the purpose of these discussions, we need to stay focused on the criteria, but these anecdotes are just one way to express our ideas and impressions of the work at hand.
I guess I don’t understand your distinguishing between “the story” and “how the story is told.” I think of them as the same thing. The emotional response came because of how the story was told. Anytime there is a strong emotional response to the theme or events, I think it COULD BE evidence that there’s something distinguished in the writing pulling that emotion out. That’s the only reason I mentioned their reaction. I wasn’t implying that emotion was part of the criteria or should be. Even though I think you could argue that an emotional reaction triggered could also be a result of “respect for children’s understandings, and appreciations” within the writing. I hope you weren’t poking fun at my students…
What I meant by “remember the audience”, was that we are adults. Obviously. We are not the intended readers for the books we are discussing. Therefore when DaNae says that she thought the dialogue was cheesy in a Western-way, I think we need to consider the audience. DaNae has probably seen a western or two. The intended readers of this story probably have not. That’s why I’m a little willing to forgive some corny Western dialogue or slang in the novel because to reach its intended audience, I feel it may have been necessary to include it (“appropriateness of style”).
Eric, within the Criteria outline, the things you cite are all under 1a and are devoted to “literary qualities.” Criterion 1b all by itself is “excellence of presentation for a child audience.” I’ve personally come to the opinion that 1b, by itself, should be weighted as heavily as all the literary quality sub-criteria in 1a. And I think the ability to elicit strong emotion and response specifically from a child audience should be taken as strong evidence that the book is excellent in that regard. But then there’s Criterion 2, “Each book is to be considered as a contribution to American literature,” which I think of as the “canon” criterion, which I know people here have sometimes argued is not a criterion. But I think there’s an argument that even a well-executed book that pitches perfectly to the audience may not be a Newbery contender because it is, say, formulaic under Criterion 2. This is just my interpretation of the Criteria, but I think an arguable one based on how the Criteria are presented. So I think Mr H could argue a book as strong on Criterion 1b based on evidence of child response, but it may not hold up under the Criteria you cite in 1a.
Mr. H, I’ll try to explain what I mean by story vs. how a story is told. To me when I see the word ‘plot’ in the criteria I think of the russian formalist term ‘syuzhet’ which can be defined as how the raw story materials are organized. My reading of 1a allows us to dissect the structure of the work at both the sentence level and the macro level but does not allow us to pay any attention to the story being told.
To use an example, imagine a story in which a character dies in the final pages. If this death elicits an emotional response in the reader you would have to determine whether it was the way this event was told or the event itself that elicited the response. Then if you believe that it is the former you’d have to show how this telling was developed in a distinguished manner. If it’s the latter, then it is not relevant to Newbery discussion. Right?
Leonard, I would counter that 1b is about the excellence of presentation and NOT the excellence of what is being presented if that makes any sense. Again it’s the packaging or the telling and not what is being told that must be excellent. So “the ability to elicit strong emotion and response specifically from a child audience should be taken as strong evidence that the book is excellent in that regard” only if the response was generated by the way it is being told.
Eric, of course. If the reader cries only because [SPOILER for another book] the teacher dies and not because of how that event fits into the plot structure or how effectively the event is presented, then I agree that shouldn’t satisfy 1b. Some books are inherently “tearjerkers” but that shouldn’t mean they are Newbery contenders; there are excellent and distinguished tearjerkers, and there are those that aren’t, but may make you cry anyway. I agree.
Thinking about it some more, Eric. I would still say that excellence in 1b is not quite the same as the literary criteria of 1a. I am thinking of the issue of “difficult” content. I believe it was you yourself last year who used Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will as an example. I understood you to say, in a sense, that your interpretation of the Newbery critiera was it doesn’t matter that the subject is pro-Nazi, it is still “excellent” based on 1a-like criteria. I agree, but I would claim that 1b could be invoked to disqualify it. If you take topics like abuse, racism, 9/11, death, etc., 1b addresses the issue of how do we present this to the audience? You could take the same topic or “story” and present it in a way that is insensitive, or traumatizing, or inappropriate, or incomprehensible to children, or you could present it in a way that fosters understanding, perspective, and growth. And yes, one can bring in 1a criteria to support this (“presentation of information” “appropriateness of style”) but it’s still not the same thing as 1b, and I think examples like Triumph of the Will (or Birth of a Nation) illustrate why.
So I just read GHOST, and it’s actually a perfect example of what I think you are talking about, Eric. I enjoyed it, but I think it’s actually a conventional sports book that gets its reaction by hitting sports book/movie conventions and not by distinctive characterization, plotting, writing, etc. By 1b, I do think it’s a pretty good sports book for a young audience, but I also think wanting to root for and cheer for Castle is sort of to be expected (assuming the author didn’t completely flub the genre) so in this case I wouldn’t put as much weight on a strong audience response (or I guess I would set a tougher standard).
Also, I loved the role language played in SKOC… especially in the relationship between Joseph and Ah-kee.
Me too. I thought the vernacular was spot on, easy to read, and genuinely enhanced Joseph’s authenticity.
I didn’t expect to like RAYMIE much, as I’d heard it compared to EDWARD TULANE and DESPEREAUX, which are not the DiCamillos I’m fond of (give me WINN-DIXIE and FLORA & ULYSSES any day).* But I liked it very very much. Great characters, interesting situations.
I’ve started GHOST and it is fantastic so far.
Looking forward to the next installation of MARCH. I liked BURN BABY BURN but agree it is definitely Printz rather than Newbery.
*Caveat: I am not a children’s book professional, or in the field at all, just an enthusiast. So I am not working from the same basis of knowledge and experience as most of the commenters, and while I do try to take child readers into consideration, I only have experience with a few child readers and know that’s not at all the same as librarians and others who work with many children year after year.
I don’t know what the NBA criteria is, or if they even have particular criteria (I couldn’t find anything on their website). It might just be up to the taste of each year’s panel of judges. Is that right?
When it comes to the Newbery criteria, I think PAX is very weak in terms of setting. Like fatal flaw weak. I felt confused about the setting throughout the book. Is it the future? Is it an alternate reality? What country is it? Why is there a baseball game happening so close to a war zone? Sometimes ambiguity can work, but I don’t think it works in PAX. Especially not for a young audience.
I LOVED the ambiguity of the setting. It’s kind of a lower-key version of what Margot Lanagan does so well, taking readers inside an alien setting and allowing us to see only what someone in that world would see. I assumed the story was taking place in contemporary North America.
I too, liked the ambiguity. I liked how it felt sort of futuristic, yet primitive at the same time. Familiar, but not familiar.
I think adult readers tend to love ambiguity more than most child readers. So I wonder if the setting (or, more specifically, the lack of a clearly defined setting) is excellent for a child audience.
The trouble with the setting — baseball is very American. But the old fox had seen war. What? Foxes don’t live terribly long lives. So it would *have* to be a future where there’d been a recent war on American soil. Or I suppose there are enough other countries that play baseball? But there were things that felt very local that ruined the *everyplace* feel for me. (That was the *only* quibble I have with Pax.)
I’m glad you pointed that out, Sondy. What war did the old fox see? I think this hits on what troubles me about the setting. Trying to place it in a larger context and not being able to.
I’m very eager to hear what a kid reading this book on their own thinks. I hope I can persuade one of my book club kids to give it a try.
I don’t believe the NBA has any criteria. From what I understand the judges kind of determine it as they go.
In talking to a former judge, their group had a pretty obvious consensus on their eventual winner and short list so that each judge just picked a favorite to fill out the long list.
It’s frustrating b/c several books haven’t been released yet. Also, Yoon’s book has an 11/1 release date, weeks after the shortlist will be announced.
It was interesting to me that I liked Raymie Nightingale a whole lot more when I listened to it — a couple months after reading it. I think it forced me to slow down and appreciate it. The reader and the accents helped, too.
I, too, was helped by listening to Raymie, and I’ve reread it since – that makes 3 times total. I still have reservations. Look forward to the discussion!
MARCH BOOK 3 wins the NBA!