CCBC-Net Archives
Stars and Fish
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Janice Del Negro <delnegro>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:38:34 -0500 (CDT)
I have been very interested in the range of responses to both Betsy Hearne's Big Picture on _Arlene Sardine_, and reactions to the book itself. I was particularly intrigued by Monica Edinger's post, as it somewhat mirrored my own responses.
When _Arlene Sardine_ arrived at The Bulletin, I immediately pulled it to read. My first response was explosive irritation. It is simply not my kind of book. (When this happens, the book automatically goes to someone else to review in order that the book get every chance for a fair evaluation. For example, puzzle books make me itch. I never review them, I give them to someone who likes them.) My second response was slightly less explosive, but still irritated- there is such a thing as being too blessed abstract. My third response was to bring the book to the reviewing table, and have the reviewers and the advisory board read and discuss it as a group, before I decided who was going to review it. (Note: all the above responses happened in the space of about five minutes.)
I have enormous respect for my reviewers/advisors, and it was clear within the first few minutes of discussion, that this was a book that required more than a cursory glance. (Most do- some more than others.) When Betsy Hearne volunteeered (bless her) to do a Big Picture relating _Arlene Sardine_ to Raschka's previous work, as well as to picture books for children as a whole, I was more than delighted, I was relieved. I knew the book was in wise and capable hands.
As for answering the questions Betsy raises in her analysis of _Arlene Sardine_, I am not sure those questions are answerable except by the individual reading, viewing, and using the book with children, or by Raschka himself. He does discuss the book at some length in an interview in the new Orchard catalog. (Query: if a book requires explanation by the author to make its point/meaning clear, is it successful in and of itself?) I would be very interested in hearing if anyone has used the book with children as a group, and what the responses were.
Regarding the length of reviews, reviewers at The Bulletin attempt to say what needs to be said, and if that requires 300 words, that's okay; if it only requires 150 words, that's okay, too. The length of the review in no way reflects upon the quality of the book being reviewed- sometimes it takes longer to say why a book *doesn't* work than why it does.
I have reviewed for SLJ, Kirkus, and Booklist, as well as The Bulletin. In all cases, stars were (and I believe still are) decided upon by the editorial staff, with (and sometimes without) the input of the reviewer.
K.T. mentioned that she doesn't think about stars when she's reviewing. Quite honestly, neither do I, unless something is so wonderful it hits me over the head. Bulletin reviewers go over reviews and books at review meetings, and it is often during this collaborative process that a book is mentioned for starring, or special attention of some sort. A book recommended for a star has to be read by both the associate editor
(Deborah Stevenson) and the editor, as well as the original reviewer. If the original reviewer happens to be Deborah or myself, we try to get a third opinion.
In most cases we (assoc ed and editor) agree as to whether we will star a book or not; sometimes, though, consensus rules. Have I ever regretted starring/not starring a book? Frankly, no. I don't have time to regret anything, there are too many new books that need attention, and besides, I have a built-in loophole.
We are currently discussing possible titles for the yearly Bulletin Blue Ribbon list. When we discuss books for Blue Ribbons, we read voraciously, rereading everything that was Recommended (R) or starred (R*), in order to decide what will make our list of the year's best books. You would be surprised at both the number of starred titles that *don't* make the list, as well as the number of unstarred titles that *do*.
Janice M. Del Negro
Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books GSLIS/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign delnegro at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Monica R. Edinger wrote:
Received on Mon 14 Sep 1998 09:38:34 AM CDT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:38:34 -0500 (CDT)
I have been very interested in the range of responses to both Betsy Hearne's Big Picture on _Arlene Sardine_, and reactions to the book itself. I was particularly intrigued by Monica Edinger's post, as it somewhat mirrored my own responses.
When _Arlene Sardine_ arrived at The Bulletin, I immediately pulled it to read. My first response was explosive irritation. It is simply not my kind of book. (When this happens, the book automatically goes to someone else to review in order that the book get every chance for a fair evaluation. For example, puzzle books make me itch. I never review them, I give them to someone who likes them.) My second response was slightly less explosive, but still irritated- there is such a thing as being too blessed abstract. My third response was to bring the book to the reviewing table, and have the reviewers and the advisory board read and discuss it as a group, before I decided who was going to review it. (Note: all the above responses happened in the space of about five minutes.)
I have enormous respect for my reviewers/advisors, and it was clear within the first few minutes of discussion, that this was a book that required more than a cursory glance. (Most do- some more than others.) When Betsy Hearne volunteeered (bless her) to do a Big Picture relating _Arlene Sardine_ to Raschka's previous work, as well as to picture books for children as a whole, I was more than delighted, I was relieved. I knew the book was in wise and capable hands.
As for answering the questions Betsy raises in her analysis of _Arlene Sardine_, I am not sure those questions are answerable except by the individual reading, viewing, and using the book with children, or by Raschka himself. He does discuss the book at some length in an interview in the new Orchard catalog. (Query: if a book requires explanation by the author to make its point/meaning clear, is it successful in and of itself?) I would be very interested in hearing if anyone has used the book with children as a group, and what the responses were.
Regarding the length of reviews, reviewers at The Bulletin attempt to say what needs to be said, and if that requires 300 words, that's okay; if it only requires 150 words, that's okay, too. The length of the review in no way reflects upon the quality of the book being reviewed- sometimes it takes longer to say why a book *doesn't* work than why it does.
I have reviewed for SLJ, Kirkus, and Booklist, as well as The Bulletin. In all cases, stars were (and I believe still are) decided upon by the editorial staff, with (and sometimes without) the input of the reviewer.
K.T. mentioned that she doesn't think about stars when she's reviewing. Quite honestly, neither do I, unless something is so wonderful it hits me over the head. Bulletin reviewers go over reviews and books at review meetings, and it is often during this collaborative process that a book is mentioned for starring, or special attention of some sort. A book recommended for a star has to be read by both the associate editor
(Deborah Stevenson) and the editor, as well as the original reviewer. If the original reviewer happens to be Deborah or myself, we try to get a third opinion.
In most cases we (assoc ed and editor) agree as to whether we will star a book or not; sometimes, though, consensus rules. Have I ever regretted starring/not starring a book? Frankly, no. I don't have time to regret anything, there are too many new books that need attention, and besides, I have a built-in loophole.
We are currently discussing possible titles for the yearly Bulletin Blue Ribbon list. When we discuss books for Blue Ribbons, we read voraciously, rereading everything that was Recommended (R) or starred (R*), in order to decide what will make our list of the year's best books. You would be surprised at both the number of starred titles that *don't* make the list, as well as the number of unstarred titles that *do*.
Janice M. Del Negro
Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books GSLIS/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign delnegro at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Monica R. Edinger wrote:
Received on Mon 14 Sep 1998 09:38:34 AM CDT
