               Heavy Medal: A Mock Newbery Blog
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Most Commented On
Archives
Blog
Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (13)
How Low Can You Go?October 21, 2009It seems that as we consider whether or not picture book texts are worthy of Newbery recognition we are confronted with two issues. The first one seems to be the interdependence between the text and the illustrations (something that affects not only picture books, but graphic novels, nonfiction, and the occasional mold-breaker like HUGO CABRET). The second issue is one of quantity. How do you compare two different texts of wildy different lengths? Isn't a shorter text inherently inferior to a longer one? Both of these issues complicate our assessment of picture book texts, and we would do well to keep them in mind.
The Newbery criteria state: "Children are defined as persons of ages up to and including fourteen, and books for this entire age range are to be considered." Given this, I would like you to close your eyes and visualize some things. Visualize what a distinguished literary contribution for one-year-olds looks like. Now visualize what a distinguished literary contribution for three-year-olds looks like. And, finally, a literary contribution for five-year-olds? Okay, now open your eyes. Without regard to the aforementioned nonsense, can you think of any books published this past year which match your idealized vision? I did. I thought of THE LION AND THE MOUSE by Jerry Pinkney. I thought of HIGHER! HIGHER by Leslie Patricelli. I thought of the Elephant & Piggie books by Mo Willems. And I thought of HOOK by Ed Young.
All of these are wonderful picture books with good (but minimalistic) texts and even better illustrations, but when I look at them through my Newbery lens, with the issues of interdependence and quantity lurking in the back of my mind, then I realize that HOOK is the one where I feel the text makes a significant enough contribution that I can recommend it for serious Newbery consideration. I have reached my threshold: HOOK is how low I can go. HOOK may seem too spare to you, but next to THE LION AND THE MOUSE, it's positively verbose. Now you may have a different threshold of how low you can go, but I urge you to find it, and then find the most excellent books there. How many words does a text need before you think it's distinguished? How independent do the pictures and text have to be before you feel comfortable with the text being a distinguished contribution to literature? We're all going to have different thresholds, but it behooves us to find the most distinguished contributions to literature throughout the entire range, not just in the middle.
Now here are the two Newbery criteria that were brought up in the last post as being pertinent to this discussion.
Because the literary qualities to be considered will vary depending on content, the committee need not expect to find excellence in each of the named elements. The book should, however, have distinguished qualities in all of the elements pertinent to it. Each book is to be considered as a contribution to literature. The committee is to make its decision primarily on the text. Other aspects of a book are to be considered only if they distract from the text. Such other aspects might include illustrations, overall design of the book, etc. My argument is that the story of HOOK--plot, setting, and character--is largely conveyed through the illustrations. You can infer some basic information from the text about these elements (just as you can infer an elaborate scenario of time travel with just burn scale, dome, A WRINKLE IN TIME, and diamonds on a ring), but those inferences hardly raise the text to a distinguished level. No, what raises this text to a distinguished level is the style and the theme. Those are the elements that are pertinent to this picture book text; you need not expect to find excellence in the others. We've already noted that the narrative has a very stripped down, spare quality that allows the reader room to draw inferences, make connections, and otherwise be a very active participant in the reading of this text. Moreover, the clipped phrases make for a cadence and rhythm that perfectly mirrors the building suspense and intensity in the story. If there is a more distinguished stylistic contribution to American literature for children, then I would love to know about it. Name names, people! Brooke noted that this story is a folklore retelling, and folklore retellings can be eligible. In defining the term, "original work," the committee will consider books that are traditional in origin, if the book is the result of original research and the retelling and interpretation are the writer's own. I had not heard this tale (like Brooke had), but when I trolled the internet, I found numerous variations (here and here and here and here), all of them markedly different than Young's retelling--and markedly inferior. Many of the reviewers noted a close resemblance to "The Ugly Duckling" by Hans Christian Andersen. Wikipedia reports the following commentary. Bruno Bettelheim observes in ‘’The Uses of Enchantment’’ that the Ugly Duckling is not confronted with the tasks, tests, or trials of the typical fairy tale hero. “No need to accomplish anything is expressed in “The Ugly Duckling”. Things are simply fated and unfold accordingly, whether or not the hero takes some action.” In conjunction with Bettelheim’s assessment, Maria Tatar notes in ’’The Annotated Hans Christian Andersen’’ that Andersen suggests the Ugly Duckling‘s superiority resides in the fact that he is of a breed different from the barnyard rabble, and that dignity and worth, moral and aesthetic superiority are determined by nature rather than accomplishment. Young does gives Hook tasks, tests, and trials--and I think that takes this already wonderful fable to a different level. Some of the variants that I looked at did not have the eagle ever realizing that he was not a chicken, while most of them had the eagle taking flight upon the first attempt. In fact, I'm not sure that any of them emphasized the perserverance that Hook exemplifies. That might be an original contribution (or I may not have read all the variants). In any case, if literature strives to explore what it means to be human, I don't know of any story from this past year that does it as powerfully as this simple one. Again, if there is a more distinguished thematic contribution to American literature, then I would love to know about it. Names!
Posted by Jonathan Hunt on October 21, 2009 | Comments (13)
October 21, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Anon commented: How many words does a text need before you think it's distinguished? Well, obviously more than 93...at least these particular 93.
October 21, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Nina commented: Jonthan, I'm nearly with you on your argument, except that I don't find "Hook" a compelling example with which to make it, and I think you DO need to find excellence in plot and setting in it. The criteria ask us to find excellence in all of the elements pertinent to *the book*. Not to just the text.
October 22, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Jonathan Hunt commented: Well, I do think plot, character, and setting are distinguished--for a picture book text. If you took all of the picture book texts published this year, both dependent and interdependent, both young and old, both minimalistic and wordy, I think you would be able to see this more clearly (and, of course, we would never expect a Newbery judge to see this view of the field because the publishers never send picture books--shame on them!). However, if you compare those elements to, say, WHEN YOU REACH ME and A SEASON OF GIFTS then it is not very distinguished at all, or rather it has no claim whatsoever to *most* distinguished. Where I do think it lays claim to *most* distinguished is style and theme, and I wish people would take those arguments more seriously. Criticizing a picture book text for being spare and interdependent seems akin to criticizing a fantasy novel for the presence of magic in the story. Are they really inherent weaknesses? Or just genre conventions? Or does the Newbery criteria really render this whole discussion moot?
October 22, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Wendy commented: Jonathan, it seems like the problem here is that you're the only one (as far as I've noticed) who finds this particular text distinguished. I think most or all of us are interested in the idea of whether picture book text can be distinguished enough to win the Newbery; I don't think anyone is totally hung up on word count.
October 22, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Jonathan Hunt commented: Wendy, I think we are totally hung up on word count, actually. Forget the Newbery criteria for a moment. Find me 93 words (or less) that are better than HOOK's.
October 22, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Jonathan Hunt commented: And to give you a frame of reference GOODNIGHT MOON is 130 words so find me something that is 25% leaner than that, please. The message I'm getting is that something with that few words cannot be a distinguished literary contribution.
October 22, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Wendy commented: I just don't know how to answer that, without a list of low-word-count picture books; I'm not even sure if it's a meaningful question, because we aren't looking to see if Hook is the most distinguished picture book with so few words (or at least, I'm not), but whether Hook itself is distinguished. When I say "not hung up on word count", I mean that I don't think of any of us would toss a book aside solely because it had only 93 words, or only fifty. We just aren't finding it in Hook. If we look at poems and imagine that they might have been published as picture books, I think I can come up with a few that I might have considered for the Newbery, that I find more distinguished than Hook. William Carlos Williams's "This Is Just to Say", for instance. 28 words--33 if you count the title--and I think there's a beautifully written plot and theme and characters and even a setting in those few words. There's the famous Hemingway six-word story ("For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn"), although that isn't for children. (Not that the Williams poem is, but it could have been published that way.) "Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening" has only 108 words.
October 22, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Jonathan Hunt commented: Wendy writes--
October 23, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Roger "Kirkus" Sutton commented: My problem with the text of Hook (and, okay, I'm not so crazy about the pictures, either) is that those 93 words feel like so many, many more, portentous and ostentatiously humble. Ick.
October 26, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Laurel commented: I'm just now catching up with all of these posts, and wondering about the historical shift away from younger books (if that's a fair thing to call it).
October 26, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Laurel commented: Sorry! Honors, not medals... but still.
October 27, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Wendy commented: Laurel, I don't believe there has been a change over time.
October 27, 2009
In response to: How Low Can You Go? Laurel commented: Oh, this is useful. Much appreciated
Advertisement
|
Advertisements
|
