CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Newbery vs. Caldecott
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Linnea Hendrickson <Lhendr>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:48:19 -0700
I think we have to be very careful of making generalizations about these awards. I don't see the Caldecott medals overall as having gone to illustrators whose work is already familiar and well-known. In fact, I think it is easier for an illustrator to win with earlier work that is breaking new ground and has the freshness of something new, than to win once the style has become well-established and familiar. There have been Caldecott winners by illustrators who have worked in the field for years without ever winning widespread attention or popularity, such as Simms Taback and Mordicai Gerstein, both of whom had been creating books for years without winning major awards.
I also see picture books as encompassing a wide range, from books aimed at very young children, with very few words, to books that have much more text, but that I would still consider picture books rather than illustrated books. Another factor that is important to me, is that the way the illustration interacts with or supports the text (if there is one) or tells a story, is as important as the quality of the art to the success of the book.
I mostly agree with the Maia's statement about the Newbery:
>This is just my sense, not a well-developed analysis, but I think that
>the Newberys are less likely to go to popular books because they are
>searching for something broader and deeper than your average book. The
>Newbery and Printz awards can shine a light on texts that might
>otherwise be hidden in the library because they aren't instantly
>consumable.
Popularity ought not be confused with quality, although I don't think that popularity necessarily negates quality and depth.
I do worry a bit that "quality" often seems to mean closest to adult in complexity and style, and that books for younger readers thus lose out in both the fiction and nonfiction awards. That's one reason I'm happy to see the new Geisel award. I wish there was some kind of division in the Sibert for books for "older" and "younger" readers, and more attention given to non-narrative ways of presenting information.
Are awards the actual topic of discussion this month?
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:48:19 -0700
I think we have to be very careful of making generalizations about these awards. I don't see the Caldecott medals overall as having gone to illustrators whose work is already familiar and well-known. In fact, I think it is easier for an illustrator to win with earlier work that is breaking new ground and has the freshness of something new, than to win once the style has become well-established and familiar. There have been Caldecott winners by illustrators who have worked in the field for years without ever winning widespread attention or popularity, such as Simms Taback and Mordicai Gerstein, both of whom had been creating books for years without winning major awards.
I also see picture books as encompassing a wide range, from books aimed at very young children, with very few words, to books that have much more text, but that I would still consider picture books rather than illustrated books. Another factor that is important to me, is that the way the illustration interacts with or supports the text (if there is one) or tells a story, is as important as the quality of the art to the success of the book.
I mostly agree with the Maia's statement about the Newbery:
>This is just my sense, not a well-developed analysis, but I think that
>the Newberys are less likely to go to popular books because they are
>searching for something broader and deeper than your average book. The
>Newbery and Printz awards can shine a light on texts that might
>otherwise be hidden in the library because they aren't instantly
>consumable.
Popularity ought not be confused with quality, although I don't think that popularity necessarily negates quality and depth.
I do worry a bit that "quality" often seems to mean closest to adult in complexity and style, and that books for younger readers thus lose out in both the fiction and nonfiction awards. That's one reason I'm happy to see the new Geisel award. I wish there was some kind of division in the Sibert for books for "older" and "younger" readers, and more attention given to non-narrative ways of presenting information.
Are awards the actual topic of discussion this month?
-- Linnea Linnea Hendrickson Albuquerque, NM Lhendr at unm.edu http://www.unm.edu/~lhendrReceived on Thu 26 Jan 2006 03:48:19 PM CST
