From: Jill Davis <jilldaviseditor>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:47:20 -0700 (PDT)

Dear all,

I can't help wondering if anyone can answer this: When did nonfiction and fiction--as writing forms-?come so divided from one another, and what is the compelling reason why we separate them as if they were two different genders. Is it the Dewey Decimal system? In the adult world, it is nonfiction that gets so much attention. Look at the contents page of the NYT Book Review--usually ten or more nonfiction books and maybe three or four novels. In the kids' book world, good, compelling nonfiction maybe more rare that its fictional counterpart, but is it really so different when it's great? Both types of writing, when done well, require a lot of research, beautiful language, and excellent storytelling. In many cases, a piece of fiction may be based on a true story, or on a historical event. Whatever it is based on, it is then called fiction, and seems more likely to be nominated by publishers for literary awards. Several years ago, I became aware of the Orbus Pictus Award, which predates the Sibert as an award for nonfiction, given to books which are particularly well illustrated--usually with photographs. This was a revelation for me since I was then working as an editor at Crown on nonfiction in the social history category, where photos would tell the story right along side the text. Yes, an abundance of photo research went into these books, but the writing was also first-rate personal storytelling--starred reviews and notables, etc. For the first time, our journalistic stories about the Japanese Internment or Women on the Homefront in WW2 by authors such as Jerry Stanley and Penny Coleman were recognized as exemplary illustrated nonfiction, and there was a new category--"for us."

When the Sibert came along, there was no doubt for me--it was fantastic to have another CHANCE at a big ALA award. I mean, after Russell Freedman won the Newbery for his wonderful photobiography of Abraham Lincoln, it had given nonfiction writers hope for more recognition in the big time, but few who followed got the Newbury. The Sibert was a better chance. It meant prestige, and yes, even a bump in sales.

But this leads me to another question: If a work of fiction is fantasy, or realistic, or historical, then why is it all lumped together as fiction? And if nonfiction can be "narrative" (compelling, reads like a story and not like encyclopedia entries) why does it remain segregated from the rest of these styles?

The line is blurred for me, since I know that much in a novel can be based on truth, but the mixture of truth and creation has to be balanced to make the story feel real. I also know that for a good nonfiction writer to bring a subject to life, she doesn't simply find a fact and write it down, she researches, synthesizes, interviews, makes connections, and struggles to tell the truth and at the same time share an opinion. The job of both types of writers have so much in common.

What do people think? Is the Sibert a consolation prize since most nonfction writers won't win a Newbury? And is there a compelling reason why they won't?

Thanks for listening, and I'd welcome any thoughts.

Best,

Jill Davis Soon-to? Executive Editor at Bloomsbury Children's Formerly Senior Editor at Viking Children's Books




                
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Received on Wed 13 Jul 2005 03:47:20 PM CDT