I find it interesting that we are having a bit of diffficulty in pinpointing just where in the Newbery criteria we can assume that we should find excellence in the stylistic quality of the prose. Certainly, I'd agree that it's often hard to seperate literary elements out from each other because there is a synergy involved with them--and that is particularly true of style. I still remain very curious, however, about why some people think that the sylsitic quality of the prose outweighs everything else in the book. It's a mystery to me. I don't see any justification whatsoever in the criteria for that view.

Jonathan: it doesn't outweigh everything. It is intrinsic in the evaluation of every criterion. I think the word *style* trips us up, because when I say *stylistic quality of the prose* I mean something different than the criterion *appropriatness of style* and that's the distinction I'm trying to make above.

The quality of the prose is the technical adeptness of the writing that allows for excellence in each criterion.

Nina, yes, I do understand your distinction. I think that it's possible to achieve technical adeptness in plot, character, setting, and theme without drop-dead-gorgeous sentence level writing. I think that's why I remain confused, for example, on a book like CATCHING FIRE when people say the writing is undistinguished, but avoid talking about the specific elements that make it so.

It's also why I say that voice (or style) covers a multitude of sins. If you find the voice of a book compelling it mitigates things that would otherwise be flaws.

I tried to be specific in my first response about Catching Fire, Jonathan. I think it's too long, too much repetition, too much "telling instead of showing", most characters not well-developed, theme hits you over the head (there's a rebellion brewing. still brewing. still brewing. this is how it's been happening all along in just a few paragraphs and something will finally happen in the next book). But I don't think there's actually a whole lot of support here for Calpurnia Tate, either.

I wonder if perhaps the style does HAVE to be good; when you amass a bunch of books with good style, then you can start hemming and hawing over distinction of plot and character and setting and theme and accuracy. Maybe good style is the baseline. I can only think of a couple of Newbery winners without it.

Wendy, you're the only person I know of that thinks plot is a weakness in CATCHING FIRE. Are there things to henpeck? Sure, but all things considered it's still one of the strongest plot books of the year. Which ones are you gonna argue are better? WHEN YOU REACH ME? Okay, fine. I'll concede that. A SEASON OF GIFTS? You just said you didn't think this was strong either. THE EVOLUTION OF CALPURNIA TATE? So where are the fiction books that have a better plot than CATCHING FIRE?

I will probably get laughed off if I cite the Entertainment Weekly review, but this blog review of Catching Fire is really good and says everything I'd want to say better than I could: tinyurl.com/knb5yj

As for what's better plot-wise, though, I've really got nothing. The only two books I've voted for on the Goodreads Newbery poll are When You Reach Me and Moonshot. (I'm putting off reading most of the MG/YA non-fiction at this point because I'm a Cybils judge for that.)

Thanks, Wendy, for linking to that review - it articulated some of my dissatisfaction with CF as a distinguished book. I still say I admire the not-plot of Calpurnia more than the plotting of CF. I would also argue that Season of Gifts doesn't have a more distinguished plot than Calpurnia. When You Reach Me, yes - that's good plotting. I just finished Charles and Emma, and I'd offer that up as another example of effective plotting - sure, the story is biographical, but the way Heiligman feeds us information creates a surprisingly tight arc.

Jess, can you talk a little bit more about how you find the plotting in THE EVOLUTION OF CALPURNIA TATE superior to CATCHING FIRE and A SEASON OF GIFTS? Thanks.

I should reread it to really articulate my thoughts, but I think the pacing suits the needs of the story. The point of the book isn't that things happen TO Calpurnia so much as that she grows as a character and learns more about her world. I don't know that a brisker pace or a tighter sequence of events would have given us better understanding of the setting or characters - there was as much plot as they required. I'm not saying that it has a better plot, but that the plot it does have is better suited to the rest of the book than the plot of Catching Fire is suited to supporting it's characters, setting, themes, etc. I'll try to give it a reread, though, and see if my thinking changes.

I'm all for understanding that a plot-driven plot and a character-driven plot are trying to accomplish different things, and judging them accordingly, but to my mind both CATCHING FIRE and CALPURNIA TATE both suffer from the same problem--too many words--despite being fairly good examples of each type of plot.

I think A SEASON OF GIFTS is an episodic, character-driven plot just like CALPURNIA TATE is and Richard Peck accomplishes just as much characterization and character development as Jacqueline Kelly does--but in half as many words. So just as I think you can make the criticism of CATCHING FIRE that the excess verbiage hampers the other literary elements, I think you can likewise argue the same for CALPURNIA. Just because the writing isn't as average as CATCHING FIRE, that doesn't mean that somehow the other literary elements are better.

I am a "lurker" in on this site and I would like to hear some discussion on THE BEST BAD LUCK I EVER HAD by Kristen Levine.