From: Lindsay <linds_na>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT)

I'm glad that Michael made the point of a weak narrative structure in Smack. It hadn't struck me until now that that was what I felt undermined the other strengths of the book. While I had no problem, as Michael did, with the character development and individualizaton (I thought this was the main strength of the book), I do agree that the story itself is "slablike" in construction ... I felt no narrative pull. There was a slowly overwhelming and compassionate sense of dread for the characters that steadily drew me through the book, but I often felt lost, sinking, in the lack of plot.

A response to my own comment might be that the lack of narrative is meant to mirror the lives of these characters -- that heroin is the only narrative pull in their otherwise illogical lives. But then, to me, this book survives mostly as a great character/situational study, and not necessarily, as distinguished literature. That is, I think it's a great book, but why did it win the Carnegie?

Michael, this might be an opportune time to jump in with some quotes -- or more of your own thoughts? Personally, I can guess what the moral argument is about this book, but what about the literary argument? I've used the phrase "distinguished literature" because that's the terminology for the Newbery Award. What's the terminology/definition used for the Carnegie?

Nina Lindsay, Children's Librarian Melrose Branch, Oakland Public Library 4805 Foothill Boulevard Oakland, CA 94601
(510)535V23 linds_na at oak2.ci.oakland.ca.us
Received on Thu 04 Jun 1998 11:47:45 AM CDT