CCBC-Net Archives
Sibert Award
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Megan Schliesman <Schliesman>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:54:40 -0600
Susan Faust, chair of the first Sibert Award Committee, is having technical difficulties posting to CCBC-Net and asked me to forward this message:
It is pure pleasure to be thinking about the Sibert Award again. As chair of the first-ever committee, I had a unique chance to consider the state of information books in general and to consider the attributes that add up to "most distinguished information book of the year" in particular. That "distinguished" designation emerges from the criteria that Kathy and Megan and Nina have already enumerated. In our discussion so far, some interesting points are beginning to emerge, even if yet obliquely:
1) that with regard to criteria, each element (as well as each strength and weakness) weighs in differently, depending on the book
2) that the terms of the award itself present certain ambiguities.
On the first point, our Sibert process focused not so much on the information contained in the year 2000 books but on how that information was presented.
It was, therefore, the criteria that became paramount. For me, the essential question was always the same: Does this book present a particular kind of information for a particular child audience in a distinguished way?
With such a question, it is possible to consider together the merits of apples and oranges, or, in this case, RALEGH and PEDRO.
For example, in terms of the criteria having to do with "high quality in writing," both are distinctively different and yet render their books
"distinguished." The rich literary style of Ralegh heavily infuses the content itself with added context and meaning. It is eloquent It can stand alone.
Likewise, the quick-fire "cartoon bubble" writing in PEDRO AND ME infuses the content with context and meaning. It does not stand alone, nor is it alone eloquent, but, taken, as intended, with the dramatic cartoon art, it plays its part in telling well a tough and tender tale in a most
"distinguished" way.
As Jonathan points out, there are three books that stand out for expository writing, interestingly enough, the histories that ask us to recall, connect, and reflect. Expository writing allows for that process to unfold. It is the wise writing-style choice in RALEGH, BLIZZARD, and LONGITUDE PRIZE. Likewise, the "graphic" memoir seems perfect vehicle for Winick's PEDRO which deftly offers up a catalytic cautionary tale within an ode to friendship without ever seeming preachy. Likewise, the choice of format and writing style for MY SEASON WITH PENGUINS is just right. What better vehicle for an artist-field scientist than a journal of notes and sketches? These books purposefully and imaginatively employ apt, even inspired formats and styles to connect kids to content.
It is the synergy of art and words that brings us to the second point. The terms of the award specify that the award goes to "the author of the most distinguished informational book of the preceding year." That poses little problem with Aronson, Murphy, and Dash who brilliantly define their books. (Note: In each case, artful overall design does heighten greatly the impact of prose). And that term poses no probem for Webb or Winick because they have each served as both author and illustrator. Where those roles are divided and the illustration is pivotal, things may become ambiguous.
A fair comparison might be with the Caldecott Medal which honors an illustrator for a most distinguished picture book which might heavily depend on the author's considerable contribution. Unlike the Newbery, which focuses primarily on writing, and looks to other features where they detract, the Sibert considers the quality of writing and illustration but more as part of an overall information book. (That package might offer many other features, as well, all to convey information accurately and effectively to a child audience).
The Sibert seems a hybrid in the award world, and one that may face its own challenges as the years pass.
Anyway, those are my random thoughts as we begin our exploration of the Sibert Award and this year's winners. I have lots of questions for the CCBC Net community: How are the books received by children? Do you think that the award will help focus attention on what makes for a
"distinguished" information book? Do you think that the award will help focus attention on what detracts from an information book, for example, lack of documentation or sketchy author authority? Do you think that the award will spure innovation/exoerimentation in information books? Do you think that the award will highlight information books as worthy beyond their utilitarian role? In other words, will it be easier to "sell" information books for their own sake? Questions, questions. Answers, answers.
Can't wait for more discussion. Susan Faust
Received on Tue 06 Mar 2001 11:54:40 AM CST
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 11:54:40 -0600
Susan Faust, chair of the first Sibert Award Committee, is having technical difficulties posting to CCBC-Net and asked me to forward this message:
It is pure pleasure to be thinking about the Sibert Award again. As chair of the first-ever committee, I had a unique chance to consider the state of information books in general and to consider the attributes that add up to "most distinguished information book of the year" in particular. That "distinguished" designation emerges from the criteria that Kathy and Megan and Nina have already enumerated. In our discussion so far, some interesting points are beginning to emerge, even if yet obliquely:
1) that with regard to criteria, each element (as well as each strength and weakness) weighs in differently, depending on the book
2) that the terms of the award itself present certain ambiguities.
On the first point, our Sibert process focused not so much on the information contained in the year 2000 books but on how that information was presented.
It was, therefore, the criteria that became paramount. For me, the essential question was always the same: Does this book present a particular kind of information for a particular child audience in a distinguished way?
With such a question, it is possible to consider together the merits of apples and oranges, or, in this case, RALEGH and PEDRO.
For example, in terms of the criteria having to do with "high quality in writing," both are distinctively different and yet render their books
"distinguished." The rich literary style of Ralegh heavily infuses the content itself with added context and meaning. It is eloquent It can stand alone.
Likewise, the quick-fire "cartoon bubble" writing in PEDRO AND ME infuses the content with context and meaning. It does not stand alone, nor is it alone eloquent, but, taken, as intended, with the dramatic cartoon art, it plays its part in telling well a tough and tender tale in a most
"distinguished" way.
As Jonathan points out, there are three books that stand out for expository writing, interestingly enough, the histories that ask us to recall, connect, and reflect. Expository writing allows for that process to unfold. It is the wise writing-style choice in RALEGH, BLIZZARD, and LONGITUDE PRIZE. Likewise, the "graphic" memoir seems perfect vehicle for Winick's PEDRO which deftly offers up a catalytic cautionary tale within an ode to friendship without ever seeming preachy. Likewise, the choice of format and writing style for MY SEASON WITH PENGUINS is just right. What better vehicle for an artist-field scientist than a journal of notes and sketches? These books purposefully and imaginatively employ apt, even inspired formats and styles to connect kids to content.
It is the synergy of art and words that brings us to the second point. The terms of the award specify that the award goes to "the author of the most distinguished informational book of the preceding year." That poses little problem with Aronson, Murphy, and Dash who brilliantly define their books. (Note: In each case, artful overall design does heighten greatly the impact of prose). And that term poses no probem for Webb or Winick because they have each served as both author and illustrator. Where those roles are divided and the illustration is pivotal, things may become ambiguous.
A fair comparison might be with the Caldecott Medal which honors an illustrator for a most distinguished picture book which might heavily depend on the author's considerable contribution. Unlike the Newbery, which focuses primarily on writing, and looks to other features where they detract, the Sibert considers the quality of writing and illustration but more as part of an overall information book. (That package might offer many other features, as well, all to convey information accurately and effectively to a child audience).
The Sibert seems a hybrid in the award world, and one that may face its own challenges as the years pass.
Anyway, those are my random thoughts as we begin our exploration of the Sibert Award and this year's winners. I have lots of questions for the CCBC Net community: How are the books received by children? Do you think that the award will help focus attention on what makes for a
"distinguished" information book? Do you think that the award will help focus attention on what detracts from an information book, for example, lack of documentation or sketchy author authority? Do you think that the award will spure innovation/exoerimentation in information books? Do you think that the award will highlight information books as worthy beyond their utilitarian role? In other words, will it be easier to "sell" information books for their own sake? Questions, questions. Answers, answers.
Can't wait for more discussion. Susan Faust
Received on Tue 06 Mar 2001 11:54:40 AM CST
