CCBC-Net Archives
Picturebook Reviews
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: John Peters <cf071>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
Friends: What a fine and eloquent conversation about reviewing this is! As no one has yet risen in defense of the much-maligned plot summary, I'd like to stick in a belated oar.
First, I'm not sure what the complaints are about. In nigh on thirty years of reading library review journals, I can't recall ever reading a review that was entirely and nothing but a plot summary. Review editors may see such creatures, but none of the editors for whom I work or have worked ever allow such a thing to appear in print.
Second, though they have other uses, don't we mostly write these gnomic annotations to give readers enough information for an informed decision about whether or not to buy a particular book? Sometimes it's a no-brainer: are you reviewing a Kevin Henkes picture book? Just mention that, a) it's a picture book, and b) by Kevin Henkes---the rest is gravy. Can't do that with his novels, though, because they just don't have as broad an appeal, not to mention that PROTECTING MARIE and SUN & SPOON speak to readers at different stages of experience. To be useful, reviews for suchlike should explain who the characters are and what happens to them, so that review readers get at least a clue about how the title's less easily encapsulated ideas and themes are expressed.
Sticking to picture books, though, besides what happens in them what do you need to know about James Stevenson's MUD FLAT APRIL FOOL, Janet Morgan Stoeke's MINERVA LOUISE AT SCHOOL, or Amy Hest's latest Baby Duck story? Conversely, how can anyone make a valid judgement about Ann-Jeanette Campbell's DORA'S BOX, Virginia Walters' MAKING UP MEGABOY (to stretch the picture book---what? genre? format?) or, for that matter, Chris Raschka's ARLENE SARDINE without knowing just exactly what happens in them?...among other aspects, of course; I'm not suggesting that a naked recitation of events is ever a complete review---especially for books like these.
Sure, most books fall between these extremes, but a properly done plot summary will also impart a sense of a book's tone, readability, levels of humor, similarities to and differences from related titles, all in ways that tell rather than show, as well as point out any regional or situational interest, and maybe just maybe be fun to read too---authors are continually coming up with the most delicious premises. Getting all of this into two or three sentences requires some (some!) practice, but reviews sans some sort of plot summaries would be a pretty abstract affairs, hard to absorb in quantity, perhaps less convincing than they might be, liable to do books less than justice.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
John Peters New York Public Library cf071 at freenet.buffalo.edu
*My esteemed institution asserts its right to differ*
Received on Fri 18 Sep 1998 12:40:48 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
Friends: What a fine and eloquent conversation about reviewing this is! As no one has yet risen in defense of the much-maligned plot summary, I'd like to stick in a belated oar.
First, I'm not sure what the complaints are about. In nigh on thirty years of reading library review journals, I can't recall ever reading a review that was entirely and nothing but a plot summary. Review editors may see such creatures, but none of the editors for whom I work or have worked ever allow such a thing to appear in print.
Second, though they have other uses, don't we mostly write these gnomic annotations to give readers enough information for an informed decision about whether or not to buy a particular book? Sometimes it's a no-brainer: are you reviewing a Kevin Henkes picture book? Just mention that, a) it's a picture book, and b) by Kevin Henkes---the rest is gravy. Can't do that with his novels, though, because they just don't have as broad an appeal, not to mention that PROTECTING MARIE and SUN & SPOON speak to readers at different stages of experience. To be useful, reviews for suchlike should explain who the characters are and what happens to them, so that review readers get at least a clue about how the title's less easily encapsulated ideas and themes are expressed.
Sticking to picture books, though, besides what happens in them what do you need to know about James Stevenson's MUD FLAT APRIL FOOL, Janet Morgan Stoeke's MINERVA LOUISE AT SCHOOL, or Amy Hest's latest Baby Duck story? Conversely, how can anyone make a valid judgement about Ann-Jeanette Campbell's DORA'S BOX, Virginia Walters' MAKING UP MEGABOY (to stretch the picture book---what? genre? format?) or, for that matter, Chris Raschka's ARLENE SARDINE without knowing just exactly what happens in them?...among other aspects, of course; I'm not suggesting that a naked recitation of events is ever a complete review---especially for books like these.
Sure, most books fall between these extremes, but a properly done plot summary will also impart a sense of a book's tone, readability, levels of humor, similarities to and differences from related titles, all in ways that tell rather than show, as well as point out any regional or situational interest, and maybe just maybe be fun to read too---authors are continually coming up with the most delicious premises. Getting all of this into two or three sentences requires some (some!) practice, but reviews sans some sort of plot summaries would be a pretty abstract affairs, hard to absorb in quantity, perhaps less convincing than they might be, liable to do books less than justice.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
John Peters New York Public Library cf071 at freenet.buffalo.edu
*My esteemed institution asserts its right to differ*
Received on Fri 18 Sep 1998 12:40:48 PM CDT
