CCBC-Net Archives
RE: Reviewing Nonfiction
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Annette Goldsmith <agoldsmith.fsu_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:44:38 -0500
Maia, I agree with you on the increasing difficulty of categorizing at all with so much genre-blending these days. My problem with "creative nonfiction" (as I've heard it used in the adult nonfiction world, anyway) is that it can imply the addition of a fictional element, for example, an imagined incident based on fact. I have no problem with the author being present -- I prefer it -- but I do want to know if something really happened.
How about "narrative nonfiction" to describe the current very exciting crop of books? As in narrative poetry. It would describe a certain type of the genre rather than relabeling the genre altogether.
Annette
Annette Goldsmith, PhD Guest Faculty University of Washington Information School Seattle, WA Chair, 2010 Mildred L. Batchelder Award Committee Member, USBBY Outstanding International Books Committee
*** Please delete my Comcast account (ayg_at_comcast.net) from your address
book and use my new email: agoldsmith.fsu_at_gmail.com ***
Message-----
From: Maia Cheli-Colando
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:50 PM To: sully_at_sully-writer.com Cc: ccbc-net@ccbc.education.wisc.edu Subject: Re:
Reviewing Nonfiction
Ed,
We use "creative nonfiction" in the natural history world, and I think it fits well there - think of a photograph as a the visual parallel: a creative interpretation of a literal moment.
Personally, I tend to shy away from "true books" as a moniker for nonfiction; for me, "true books" have more to do with a deep integrity.
Nonfiction is an attempt at relaying an event that is not "all made up"... but it is still often not true. I think there is some danger in teaching kids that nonfiction is "true" rather than "might be true." :)
Creative nonfiction usually wears its banners of personal interpretation clearly: as a reader you can tell that this is my experience, my philosophy; I the writer am present and available. But more literal nonfiction tends to mask its author beneath the seeming "reality" of the event. As you might guess from what I just wrote, I do prefer when writers willingly inhabit their nonfiction; it lends so well to critical thinking on the part of the reader if the author self-presents as a person, not an omniscient voice!
But to terms in general... I'm finding it harder and harder to categorize books into genres as times goes on. Thus the Caldecott award seems less complicated to me -- in terms of definition, not in terms of merit or value -- than the Sibert or the Printz.
All the best, Maia
-- Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California -- blogging at http://www.littlefolktales.org/wordpress -- -- or drop in on Facebook! --
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:44:38 -0500
Maia, I agree with you on the increasing difficulty of categorizing at all with so much genre-blending these days. My problem with "creative nonfiction" (as I've heard it used in the adult nonfiction world, anyway) is that it can imply the addition of a fictional element, for example, an imagined incident based on fact. I have no problem with the author being present -- I prefer it -- but I do want to know if something really happened.
How about "narrative nonfiction" to describe the current very exciting crop of books? As in narrative poetry. It would describe a certain type of the genre rather than relabeling the genre altogether.
Annette
Annette Goldsmith, PhD Guest Faculty University of Washington Information School Seattle, WA Chair, 2010 Mildred L. Batchelder Award Committee Member, USBBY Outstanding International Books Committee
*** Please delete my Comcast account (ayg_at_comcast.net) from your address
book and use my new email: agoldsmith.fsu_at_gmail.com ***
Message-----
From: Maia Cheli-Colando
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:50 PM To: sully_at_sully-writer.com Cc: ccbc-net@ccbc.education.wisc.edu Subject: Re:
Reviewing Nonfiction
Ed,
We use "creative nonfiction" in the natural history world, and I think it fits well there - think of a photograph as a the visual parallel: a creative interpretation of a literal moment.
Personally, I tend to shy away from "true books" as a moniker for nonfiction; for me, "true books" have more to do with a deep integrity.
Nonfiction is an attempt at relaying an event that is not "all made up"... but it is still often not true. I think there is some danger in teaching kids that nonfiction is "true" rather than "might be true." :)
Creative nonfiction usually wears its banners of personal interpretation clearly: as a reader you can tell that this is my experience, my philosophy; I the writer am present and available. But more literal nonfiction tends to mask its author beneath the seeming "reality" of the event. As you might guess from what I just wrote, I do prefer when writers willingly inhabit their nonfiction; it lends so well to critical thinking on the part of the reader if the author self-presents as a person, not an omniscient voice!
But to terms in general... I'm finding it harder and harder to categorize books into genres as times goes on. Thus the Caldecott award seems less complicated to me -- in terms of definition, not in terms of merit or value -- than the Sibert or the Printz.
All the best, Maia
-- Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California -- blogging at http://www.littlefolktales.org/wordpress -- -- or drop in on Facebook! --
---Received on Fri 29 Jan 2010 04:44:38 PM CST
