CCBC-Net Archives
FW: RE: Caldecott and Diversity Question 3 - Subject Matter?
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:51:57 -0400
Apologies if duplicated but I don't think this one got through.
Charles
From: Charles Bayless
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:46 AM To: 'Reid, Robert A.'; 'Megan Schliesman'; 'ccbc-net, Subscribers of' Subject: RE:
Caldecott and Diversity Question 3 - Subject Matter?
Question 3: Does subject matter affect choice of winners ("Jerry Pinkney finally won the big one (five honors?), but notice it wasn't for one of his books representing African-American culture.")
It is probably true that subject matter does affect outcome but most likely obliquely and via indirect mechanisms and it follows from the data observations in Question 2, above. Data observation five is particularly striking regarding the low rates of CSK translation and the de minimis number of foreign editions and languages into which they are translated. The fixed cost of bringing a book to market is large. Once published, any activities that create more sales or new markets only have to cover their variable costs to be beneficial to the publisher. There are costs to translations but they are likely small in comparison to the cost of original publication. The consequence is that, barring special circumstances, publishers have a high incentive to facilitate translations and sales in foreign countries in order to defray fixed costs or to create supplemental profit.
Beyond the reading markets of Asia and Europe, it is a logical inference that African American stories might be of some appeal to the largest African economies (Nigeria, South Africa and Ethiopia) as well as those of the Black diaspora (Brazil). There is no means to quantify from the public information the extent to which African American themed books are sold into English speaking Nigeria and South Africa but it is notable that none of the CSK winners have been translated into Portuguese (Brazil) or Amharic (Ethiopia). On the other hand, I have come across non-CSK winner books that do have civil rights subject matter, deal with racism or have black characters which have been translated into African languages (Snowy Day by Keats into Zulu, Maniac Magee into Portuguese, To Kill a Mockingbird into Portuguese).
The low receptivity of CSK titles into the global reading marketplace and in particular to the African and African diaspora countries implies that perhaps there is some issue related to subject matter. Eyeballing the list of CSK winners, and consistent with the award criteria, it is rich in biographies of famous African Americans, in tales of the American Civil Rights era, slavery, and contemporary African American struggles. It is possible that the very particularity which can enhance storytelling, might also be subverting access to a wider audience, not just within the US but internationally as well. While these issues are important to an American in an American context, they are likely secondary or irrelevant to many international readers.
So does subject matter affect choice of winners for Caldecott? I don't know but I suspect so. If the Caldecott goal is to recognize significant achievement AND there is an assumption that choice of subject matter might undermine attainment of significant achievement (as evidenced by critical opinion, market reception, and international adoption) AND if there is a perception (which the CSK numbers would support) that especially focused subject matter can stand in the way of significant achievement (evidenced by critical opinion, market reception, and international adoption), then Yes, choice of subject matter might indirectly affect the choice of winners. Robert's observation regarding Jerry Pinkney is consistent with this: in print only four years and already 6 foreign editions and three languages). Also supporting this conclusion is the example of Ezra Jack Keats' The Snowy Day (which predates CSK and would not have anyway met the criteria). Featuring a black character but without any of the civil rights or
historical context so commonly an element of CSK winners, Snowy Day has been translated into 35 foreign editions and 12 languages (including Zulu: South Africa) compared to the average CSK of 7 foreign editions and 2 languages. This suggests to me that color of protagonist or author is less of an issue but that subject matter might be an issue.
The dynamics of the CSK award are not dissimilar to the issues raised in this article (Why book industry sees the world split still by race by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, 2006: d-split-still-by-race-462455/) regarding whether African American authors ought to be displayed in an African American section (to make them easier to find) or in general fiction (to potentially reach a larger audience). There is not necessarily a right answer but there are trade-offs, each with different consequences.
This has been a deep dive into data in an effort to quantify what is actually the case versus what we think it might be or ought to be. The data may be wrong and the analysis might be flawed but it at least provides an objective base for discussion.
Coming out of the data weeds, I think the conclusion from this analysis is that the Caldecott is pretty successful at identifying books of significant achievement (as evidenced by measures of consequentiality), that they are multicultural in intent ("no limitations") as well as in terms of achievement (35% by emigrants, minorities and/or persecuted groups), and that they are multiracial in rough proportion to the book reading population but not to the overall demographics of the nation. There is little overlap between Caldecott winners and CSK winners owing to the different objectives of the two awards. To the extent that subject matter might impede significant achievement (however measured), it is likely that that affects choice of Caldecott winners; i.e. subject matter is not in itself determinant, only to the extent that it enhances or detracts from the potential for significant achievement in terms of consequentiality.
As I mentioned, I will post the methodology of the original project within a couple of weeks and will post a note then for anyone interested in greater detail.
Charles
Received on Fri 17 May 2013 12:51:57 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:51:57 -0400
Apologies if duplicated but I don't think this one got through.
Charles
From: Charles Bayless
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:46 AM To: 'Reid, Robert A.'; 'Megan Schliesman'; 'ccbc-net, Subscribers of' Subject: RE:
Caldecott and Diversity Question 3 - Subject Matter?
Question 3: Does subject matter affect choice of winners ("Jerry Pinkney finally won the big one (five honors?), but notice it wasn't for one of his books representing African-American culture.")
It is probably true that subject matter does affect outcome but most likely obliquely and via indirect mechanisms and it follows from the data observations in Question 2, above. Data observation five is particularly striking regarding the low rates of CSK translation and the de minimis number of foreign editions and languages into which they are translated. The fixed cost of bringing a book to market is large. Once published, any activities that create more sales or new markets only have to cover their variable costs to be beneficial to the publisher. There are costs to translations but they are likely small in comparison to the cost of original publication. The consequence is that, barring special circumstances, publishers have a high incentive to facilitate translations and sales in foreign countries in order to defray fixed costs or to create supplemental profit.
Beyond the reading markets of Asia and Europe, it is a logical inference that African American stories might be of some appeal to the largest African economies (Nigeria, South Africa and Ethiopia) as well as those of the Black diaspora (Brazil). There is no means to quantify from the public information the extent to which African American themed books are sold into English speaking Nigeria and South Africa but it is notable that none of the CSK winners have been translated into Portuguese (Brazil) or Amharic (Ethiopia). On the other hand, I have come across non-CSK winner books that do have civil rights subject matter, deal with racism or have black characters which have been translated into African languages (Snowy Day by Keats into Zulu, Maniac Magee into Portuguese, To Kill a Mockingbird into Portuguese).
The low receptivity of CSK titles into the global reading marketplace and in particular to the African and African diaspora countries implies that perhaps there is some issue related to subject matter. Eyeballing the list of CSK winners, and consistent with the award criteria, it is rich in biographies of famous African Americans, in tales of the American Civil Rights era, slavery, and contemporary African American struggles. It is possible that the very particularity which can enhance storytelling, might also be subverting access to a wider audience, not just within the US but internationally as well. While these issues are important to an American in an American context, they are likely secondary or irrelevant to many international readers.
So does subject matter affect choice of winners for Caldecott? I don't know but I suspect so. If the Caldecott goal is to recognize significant achievement AND there is an assumption that choice of subject matter might undermine attainment of significant achievement (as evidenced by critical opinion, market reception, and international adoption) AND if there is a perception (which the CSK numbers would support) that especially focused subject matter can stand in the way of significant achievement (evidenced by critical opinion, market reception, and international adoption), then Yes, choice of subject matter might indirectly affect the choice of winners. Robert's observation regarding Jerry Pinkney is consistent with this: in print only four years and already 6 foreign editions and three languages). Also supporting this conclusion is the example of Ezra Jack Keats' The Snowy Day (which predates CSK and would not have anyway met the criteria). Featuring a black character but without any of the civil rights or
historical context so commonly an element of CSK winners, Snowy Day has been translated into 35 foreign editions and 12 languages (including Zulu: South Africa) compared to the average CSK of 7 foreign editions and 2 languages. This suggests to me that color of protagonist or author is less of an issue but that subject matter might be an issue.
The dynamics of the CSK award are not dissimilar to the issues raised in this article (Why book industry sees the world split still by race by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, 2006: d-split-still-by-race-462455/) regarding whether African American authors ought to be displayed in an African American section (to make them easier to find) or in general fiction (to potentially reach a larger audience). There is not necessarily a right answer but there are trade-offs, each with different consequences.
This has been a deep dive into data in an effort to quantify what is actually the case versus what we think it might be or ought to be. The data may be wrong and the analysis might be flawed but it at least provides an objective base for discussion.
Coming out of the data weeds, I think the conclusion from this analysis is that the Caldecott is pretty successful at identifying books of significant achievement (as evidenced by measures of consequentiality), that they are multicultural in intent ("no limitations") as well as in terms of achievement (35% by emigrants, minorities and/or persecuted groups), and that they are multiracial in rough proportion to the book reading population but not to the overall demographics of the nation. There is little overlap between Caldecott winners and CSK winners owing to the different objectives of the two awards. To the extent that subject matter might impede significant achievement (however measured), it is likely that that affects choice of Caldecott winners; i.e. subject matter is not in itself determinant, only to the extent that it enhances or detracts from the potential for significant achievement in terms of consequentiality.
As I mentioned, I will post the methodology of the original project within a couple of weeks and will post a note then for anyone interested in greater detail.
Charles
Received on Fri 17 May 2013 12:51:57 PM CDT
