From: Michael Thorn <achuka>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:52:26 +0100

Apologies for not jumping back in earlier but I was in away in London interviewing Michael Cadnum (more of later)... ...

history of "Junk." I'm curious: Did Penguin issue the paperback before or after the Carnegie shortlist was announced?

If my memory serves me correctly, it was after the shortlisting but before the final winner announcement.

they don't seem to be readily available on-line any longer. If you get a chance to give us some quotes from your cuttings file, it would be greatly appreciated by all, I'm sure.

Will certainly do that over the next few days...

Carnegie shortlist was announced is how different are the Carnegie Award proceedings from the American equivalent, the Newbery Medal.

I know, for example, that a very prominent children's books editor interviewed Melvin Burgess prior to the announcement of the result, with both knowing that he had won, and both having to pretend to the other throughout the interview that they didn't know. Hence, the Press's ability to react instantly to the announcement. But is the Newbery completely hush-hush until the last minute? You must tell me.

This is already a most interesting discussion. Michael Cadnum modestly asked me why anyone in the UK might be want to read an interview with him. I told him that interest in teenage fiction had increased since 'Junk' had won the Carnegie last year. He had heard about that, but not read the book. At least one post has referred to Burgess's detached narractive style. One of the things that I hope I shall manage to convey when I writie up the interview with Cadnum is the degree to which he
'cares' about his central characters. As a critic/reviewer I have/had 2 reservations about 'Junk'. The different voices are not sufficiently individualised. When I read the book I had to frequently refer back to chapter headings to remind myself who was speaking. Despite the fact that others have praised it for its structural complexity, I find it (judged by the highest standards, say those of Cormier's
'The Chocolate War') quite crudely (slablike) constructed. Its (considerable) merits are centred in its narrative drive. It is a compelling read. But the ending is exceedingly dismal, with characters' horizons too constricted for my taste (compare with the open endings of many of Cadnum's novels). In fact, the whole story 'smacks' too much of the morality tale, and it is no surprise to me that (contrary to the reported outcry in the British press -- which I shall quote from soon) the book has been enthusiastically bought by parents and adopted by teachers. Teenagers wanting to read a book about drugs are, for better or worse, more likely to read 'Trainspotting'.

I think it's admirable that the book has been published with no revisions for the transatlatic readership, other than the Afterword previously referred to. As a reviewer, I am frequently berating publishers for playing false and ill-considered havoc with hte original texts. One example recently was a book by Betsey Duffey, in which a character's name was changed, the name of the hometown was changed, and T-shirt logo was changed so that it would appear to British readers as if the book was set in England. But of course there were so many other references which clearly made it an American book, rendering the whole exercise redundant.

Michael
(expecting some feedback from this post!!)
_____________________________________________ ACHUKA Children's Books UK achuka at webplus.co.uk http://www.webplus.co.uk/~achuka
Received on Wed 03 Jun 1998 05:52:26 PM CDT