CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Five Initial Reactions to the Awards
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Eliza T. Dresang <edresang>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:02:03 -0500
Jill
In the late 1980s I was on a joint ALSC/YALSA Age DefinitionTask Force. Our purpose was to define
'child' and 'young adult' -- so the division overlap could be settled. After months of debate, we on the task force concluded that an exact dividing line was an impossibility. That is because childhood to young adulthood is a transition, a gradual process that has no precise demarcation line (such as the physical onset of puberty). And we further realized that a young person in that cross over zone, ages 12 - 14 may be a child one moment, hour or day and a young adult the next moment, hour, and day in psychological needs, in perspective, and in interests. And finally we realized in terms of resources that reader response differs from reader to reader so that the very same book may be read differently by a 'child' who is 12 from the reading by a 'young adult' who is 12.
In the end the Task Force decided that there was nothing to do but live with the overlap, realizing that it existed. There are many other topics, such as what should be on the Notables, on which perfect agreement will most likely never be reached. The age definition for child and young adult is most likely one of those topics. Some people feel strongly ALSC should cut the awards at 12. I disagree with that because there are many fine books that can be read by a young person who is still largely a 'child' in that cross over age range.
As for the Partridge book about John Lennon or Woody Gutherie, I can assure you that these books were considered even though I was not on the Sibert Committee and their deliberations are confidential. And I can also assure you that there is no definitive answer about whether the book was considered 'age appropriate' or not -- just as publishers struggle with this, so do librarians. I was in a local book discussion group that included the Lennon book, and the professionals in that group could not agree on this question.
I have been on a number of both ALSC ,YALSA, and other association evaluation committees, e.g., Newbery (chair), Caldecott, Belpr? (chair), Batchelder (Chair), Margaret A. Edwards
(current), Jane Addams (current). This debate is inevitable (about child versus young adult) -- it has come up on every committee on which I've served in relation to more than one book or author. But I can also assure you that the age label that the publishers give to a book does not influence the committee's decision about whether to consider the book. If you look at reviews, reviewers also give widely different age labels to almost every young people's book published and that also has no influence on the committee's decision. So the stance of these committees is to consider everything that might possibly be appropriate and to make their own determinations. And all committees, as I said, do not think alike on this 'grey zone' matter. It really gets down to some deep philosophical issues about whether children are safer knowing or not knowing. If a publisher thinks a committee might consider a book, it is better to bring it to their attention than to fear that it is not in the proper age range.
Hope this 'it is a mystery to everyone' response helps in relation to committee choices!
Eliza
At 12:37 AM -0800 2/1/06, Jill Davis wrote:
>For me, there is a mystery about what is eligible for
>the Sibert. The ALA sight says that books for children
>up to age 14 may be considered. Does that mean the
>award is meant to include young adult entries? That
>has not been my impression, and it's been noted by
>others.
>
>Betsy Partidge's book on John Lennon was intended for
>readers age 12 and up obviously because of older
>subject matter and language, yet I remember when
>Richie Partington first talked about it on Richie's
>Picks, he lamented the fact that it wasn't eligible
>for the Sibert. My colleagues at the time really
>didn't know if it was or not. I thought it could be.
>
>Should we at Viking have said the book was meant for
>children 14 and up? Are we publishers putting age
>guidelines on our flaps that don't match the criteria
>that the awards committees are using? Clearly, the
>line is blurry.
>
>Often, editors and authors don't know what awards our
>books are eligible for. When Partridge's book on Woody
>Guthrie didn't get picked for a Sibert or a Sibert
>honor back in 2002, we never knew if it had even been
>eligible. To this day, I don't know if it was
>considered or not.
>
>After the awards are given, is there a discussion list
>that gets circulated for the major awards? Seeing the
>lists afterwards might help us out to plan for the
>future and to understand what went into the process of
>picking. In my many years in publishing, I have never
>seen a discussion list for any of these awards.
>
>Jill Davis
>Executive Editor
>Bloomsbury Children's Books
>
>--- "Hunt, Jonathan" <Hunt.Jo at monet.k12.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Orbis Pictus choices do seem youngish. I really
>> like the titles the Printz committee recognized,
>> particulary JOHN LENNON, but there was a wealth of
>> informational titles for older readers this
>> year--HITLER YOUTH, GOOD BROTHER, BAD BROTHER, THE
>> REAL REVOLUTION, INVISIBLE ALLIES, and OUR ELEANOR,
>> to name a small handful. And I do think a YALSA
>> informational award would not be unwelcome.
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCBC-Net mailing list
>> CCBC-Net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
>> Visit this link to read archives or to
>> unsubscribe...
>>
>http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>CCBC-Net mailing list
>CCBC-Net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
>Visit this link to read archives or to unsubscribe...
>http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:02:03 -0500
Jill
In the late 1980s I was on a joint ALSC/YALSA Age DefinitionTask Force. Our purpose was to define
'child' and 'young adult' -- so the division overlap could be settled. After months of debate, we on the task force concluded that an exact dividing line was an impossibility. That is because childhood to young adulthood is a transition, a gradual process that has no precise demarcation line (such as the physical onset of puberty). And we further realized that a young person in that cross over zone, ages 12 - 14 may be a child one moment, hour or day and a young adult the next moment, hour, and day in psychological needs, in perspective, and in interests. And finally we realized in terms of resources that reader response differs from reader to reader so that the very same book may be read differently by a 'child' who is 12 from the reading by a 'young adult' who is 12.
In the end the Task Force decided that there was nothing to do but live with the overlap, realizing that it existed. There are many other topics, such as what should be on the Notables, on which perfect agreement will most likely never be reached. The age definition for child and young adult is most likely one of those topics. Some people feel strongly ALSC should cut the awards at 12. I disagree with that because there are many fine books that can be read by a young person who is still largely a 'child' in that cross over age range.
As for the Partridge book about John Lennon or Woody Gutherie, I can assure you that these books were considered even though I was not on the Sibert Committee and their deliberations are confidential. And I can also assure you that there is no definitive answer about whether the book was considered 'age appropriate' or not -- just as publishers struggle with this, so do librarians. I was in a local book discussion group that included the Lennon book, and the professionals in that group could not agree on this question.
I have been on a number of both ALSC ,YALSA, and other association evaluation committees, e.g., Newbery (chair), Caldecott, Belpr? (chair), Batchelder (Chair), Margaret A. Edwards
(current), Jane Addams (current). This debate is inevitable (about child versus young adult) -- it has come up on every committee on which I've served in relation to more than one book or author. But I can also assure you that the age label that the publishers give to a book does not influence the committee's decision about whether to consider the book. If you look at reviews, reviewers also give widely different age labels to almost every young people's book published and that also has no influence on the committee's decision. So the stance of these committees is to consider everything that might possibly be appropriate and to make their own determinations. And all committees, as I said, do not think alike on this 'grey zone' matter. It really gets down to some deep philosophical issues about whether children are safer knowing or not knowing. If a publisher thinks a committee might consider a book, it is better to bring it to their attention than to fear that it is not in the proper age range.
Hope this 'it is a mystery to everyone' response helps in relation to committee choices!
Eliza
At 12:37 AM -0800 2/1/06, Jill Davis wrote:
>For me, there is a mystery about what is eligible for
>the Sibert. The ALA sight says that books for children
>up to age 14 may be considered. Does that mean the
>award is meant to include young adult entries? That
>has not been my impression, and it's been noted by
>others.
>
>Betsy Partidge's book on John Lennon was intended for
>readers age 12 and up obviously because of older
>subject matter and language, yet I remember when
>Richie Partington first talked about it on Richie's
>Picks, he lamented the fact that it wasn't eligible
>for the Sibert. My colleagues at the time really
>didn't know if it was or not. I thought it could be.
>
>Should we at Viking have said the book was meant for
>children 14 and up? Are we publishers putting age
>guidelines on our flaps that don't match the criteria
>that the awards committees are using? Clearly, the
>line is blurry.
>
>Often, editors and authors don't know what awards our
>books are eligible for. When Partridge's book on Woody
>Guthrie didn't get picked for a Sibert or a Sibert
>honor back in 2002, we never knew if it had even been
>eligible. To this day, I don't know if it was
>considered or not.
>
>After the awards are given, is there a discussion list
>that gets circulated for the major awards? Seeing the
>lists afterwards might help us out to plan for the
>future and to understand what went into the process of
>picking. In my many years in publishing, I have never
>seen a discussion list for any of these awards.
>
>Jill Davis
>Executive Editor
>Bloomsbury Children's Books
>
>--- "Hunt, Jonathan" <Hunt.Jo at monet.k12.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Orbis Pictus choices do seem youngish. I really
>> like the titles the Printz committee recognized,
>> particulary JOHN LENNON, but there was a wealth of
>> informational titles for older readers this
>> year--HITLER YOUTH, GOOD BROTHER, BAD BROTHER, THE
>> REAL REVOLUTION, INVISIBLE ALLIES, and OUR ELEANOR,
>> to name a small handful. And I do think a YALSA
>> informational award would not be unwelcome.
>>
>> Jonathan
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCBC-Net mailing list
>> CCBC-Net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
>> Visit this link to read archives or to
>> unsubscribe...
>>
>http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>CCBC-Net mailing list
>CCBC-Net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
>Visit this link to read archives or to unsubscribe...
>http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
-- Eliza T. Dresang Eliza Atkins Gleason Professor College of Information Florida State University 32306-2100 Phone: 850 644 5877 FAX: 850 644 9763Received on Wed 01 Feb 2006 07:02:03 AM CST
