Someday my Printz will come

Of all the posts I make in a year, the one where I try to predict the Printz winner (I haven't been successful yet, though I did pick one honor book in 2008 and two in 2007) is always my favorite.

Standard disclaimer: These opinions are mine and mine alone. I have not consulted anyone on the Printz committee about this post. These opinions are completely separate of whatever may come of the BCCLS Mock Printz, which is coming up in a few days. Yes, I have been given copies of some of these books by their publishers and no, that has not had any influence on my thoughts.

How I'm predicting what will win: There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about what the Printz is for, and what kind of books receive it. Allow me to quote from the Printz Award's official website:

What is quality? We know what it is not. We hope the award will have a wide AUDIENCE among readers from 12 to 18 but POPULARITY is not the criterion for this award. Nor is MESSAGE. In accordance with the Library Bill of Rights, CONTROVERSY is not something to avoid. In fact, we want a book that readers will talk about.

Librarianship focuses on individuals, in all their diversity, and that focus is a fundamental value of the Young Adult Library Services Association and its members. Diversity is, thus, honored in the Association and in the collections and services that libraries provide to young adults.

Having established what the award is not, it is far harder to formulate what it is. As every reader knows, a great book can redefine what we mean by quality. Criteria change with time. Therefore, flexibility and an avoidance of the too-rigid are essential components of these criteria (some examples of too-rigid criteria: A realistic hope - well, what about Robert Cormier's Chocolate War or Brock Coles' The Facts Speak for Themselves? Avoiding complicated plot - what about Louis Sachar's Holes? Originality - what about all the mythic themes that are continually re-worked? We can all think of other great books that don't fit those criteria.)

What we are looking for, in short, is literary excellence.

In other words, no one cares what your teens love, or what made you cry, or if you think anyone is going to be reading this book in five years. It's all about the writing. Plot, characterization, voice, story development, etc.

Caveat: I'm only talking about books I've read. There are several books getting Printz buzz that I haven't finished, like Tender Morsels by Margo Lanagan. Also, since it's my blog, my predictions are and can only be limited to what I think makes for a book of literary excellence.

The book everyone thinks will take an honor, but I think otherwise: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. Look, no one loves this book more than I. I'm recommending it to anyone who will listen to me talk for more than three minutes. I am on pins and needles waiting for the sequel and I hope that by the time the last book is out it will be a sensation on par with Harry Potter. I don't, however, see it as one of the five most literarilly (I know that's not a word) excellent books this year.

The book no one thinks will take an honor, but I think otherwise: Pretty Monsters by Kelly Link. Blah blah short stories literary awards WHAT. EVER. Have you read this book? It's phenomenal, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of short stories. Short stories are so difficult to write well, but Link has it down to a science. She uses just the right words at the right time to give her stories this very eerie quality, yet at the same time they're funny and thought-provoking. This ability to create so much feeling and such a clear yet alternative world in every story makes Link's writing literary.

The three-peat: Paper Towns by John Green. This is the first of Green's books that I feel really deserves the Printz or an honor. And although some have complained that Paper Towns revisits too much of what we saw in Green's previous two novels, I have to ask why we care about that. Past books and merits are not taken into consideration when deliberating the Printz. Every year there's a new committee, and every year there's a clean slate. All that aside, I loved the blend of quirky characters, action, and mysteries hidden in literature. Viva la nerd lit!

The ones that will honor because of language: The Astonishing Life of Octavian Nothing, Traitor to the Nation, Volume II: The Kingdom on the Waves by M.T. Anderson and The Knife of Never Letting Go by Patrick Ness. Both of these authors have done an outstanding job of using language and narration to build their characters' worlds, one historical and one dystopian. Anderson uses authentic Revolutionary War era language and Ness mixes the visual and auditory, but both are accomplishments of what language can do for both plot and characterization.

The one that will honor because of characterization: Nation by Terry Pratchett. Two teens marooned on an island after a tsunami must find a way to communicate and rebuild their land. As they do so, the island, the Nation, becomes a third character in the story. I'm only part of the way into this book right now (must finish by Friday!), but what's impressing me the most so far is how Pratchett keeps the reader interested in Mau, the boy who leaves his island to become a man, while Mau is alone for a good chunk of the novel. He's got no one to talk to, no other characters to conflict with initally, but the reader still wants to know what happens to him. Pratchett also excels at making Mau's voice distinct from his companion's, an English girl who decides to go by Daphne.

The silent killer: You Know Where to Find Me by Rachel Cohn. No one is talking about this book, but everyone should. I can only imagine the challenge of writing a depressed character who doesn't make the reader want to throw either the book or herself out a window, but Cohn does it. She does it with pathos and wit, too. As is her trademark, she writes about nontraditional families who stick together through terrible times. As is not her trademark, there is not much lighthearted or rompy about this book. There's the pain of a family member's suicide, drug use, and unrequited crushes, and it all makes you want to read more.

The one that stands out: The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks by E. Lockhart. Of all the books I've listed here it's probably the most popular, and it's the one that seems to mean the most things to the most people. To some it's about feminism. To some it's about power. As I've mentioned before, to me it's about belonging. The other thing I really like about it is that it's in third person. I don't know who passed out the memo that YA should really be in first person, but I wish he hadn't. Most first person really stinks. Now, given Lockhart's talents I believe this book could have been great in first person, but I'm so glad it's in third because
Lockhart was able to use it to impart a sort of wise, sarcastic voice to the narration of Frankie's actions. Point of view is used so well here, it should be recognized for this outstanding accomplishment alone.

The book that should win: Madapple by Christina Meldrum. Weird word choices, provocative plotlines, and a world full of insane characters. YA literature at its finest.

Shortlist for the Morris Award

I'm really excited about YALSA's Morris Award, given to a first YA novel. You can see the complete list here, and personally I'll say that I have a definite favorite (Madapple) and a least favorite (Absolute Brightness). Hmm. I also loved Me, the Missing, and the Dead and am happy to see it on the shortlist.

So, um, may the best Madapple win!

--

After thinking about this for a little while, I have decided that I am really, really bothered by the inclusion of Absolute Brightness on this list, given the award's criteria. They say:

The William C. Morris YA Debut Award celebrates the achievement of a previously unpublished author, or authors, who have made a strong literary debut in writing for young adult readers. The work cited will illuminate the teen experience and enrich the lives of its readers through its excellence, demonstrated by:

-Compelling, high quality writing and/or illustration
-The integrity of the work as a whole
-Its proven or potential appeal to a wide range of teen readers

Now, those first two are debatable. Ask fifty librarians what constitutes compelling, high quality writing and potential teen appeal and you'll get fifty different answers. On these points, I'm not going to debate with the committee, although clearly they have different ideas about compelling, high quality writing than I do. On the second point, I have to ask this: Doesn't the "integrity of the work as a whole" include fact-checking? The thing that turned me off Absolute Brightness the most was the number of factual errors that could so easily have been fixed. All it takes is one look at a map to know that the Parkway and the Turnpike are nowhere near each other, and that Neptune is quite a schlep to Trenton. It would only take Google to tell you that the scene with the dad pumping his girlfriend's gas would not be possible, because you can't pump your own gas in New Jersey.

I know it's fiction, but if we're quick to judge historical fiction based on its accuracy, why can't we deem a book to have less integrity when the author didn't bother with the geographical facts of the setting? The New Jersey setting in Absolute Brightness is mentioned a lot; this is not one of those books that could be set anywhere. It's because of the frequent mentioning of New Jersey and the many wrong facts about it that I think this book lacks integrity as a whole.

The best book no kid wants to read

The article everyone in the YA and children's lit world is talking about lately is Has the Newbery lost its way?, by Anita Silvey in the October SLJ. I read the article, and I read Melissa's response to it at Librarian by Day, and I read Monica Edinger's thoughts on the Newbery's relevance, and Roger Sutton's entry, titled Going for the Gold, and Nina Lindsay's response at Heavy Medal.

After reading all of these, I went back and reread the Newbery criteria, and after mixing it all together in my head and baking at 350 degrees I have the following:

1. Why do we care about whether kids like the Newbery books? It's not the committee's charge to pick books kids will like.

2. Isn't Ranganathan's second law "To every book its reader?" Whether a book has millions of readers or fifty, there is a reader for every book out there. Why does it have to be liked, or resonate with a huge number of people, to contribute to the genre? I don't particularly like the Beatles, but I do admit they contributed to the rock genre in important ways.

3. Clearly, we're not doing a good enough job not just educating the public, but educating our fellow librarians, about what the Newbery and the Printz are given for. Personally, I like to say that the Newbery and the Printz are given to works of art, books that stand apart and make us rethink what a children's or YA book can be. The Newbery is given to a book "for which children are a potential audience," which by my interpretation means that the Newbery people have always acknowledged that not all kids will lurve a Newbery winner. Potential, not absolute, not guaranteed. I think the use of the word "potential" shows that the Newbery committee does understand the diversity of children and their reading habits and that no one book will ever speak to all children. Except maybe Holes.

4. One of the things I like best about my job is that I get to talk about YA books with other adults and not be thought of as strange. I think there's extreme value in adults, looking at books published for children and teens, bringing their adult perspectives and experiences to a discussion about said books. It's why I pushed so hard for Octavian Nothing when it came up at the BCCLS Mock Printz in 2007. I thought it was the perfect book to demonstrate why the Printz is given. It was a work of art, chronicling an adolescence that was completely unfamiliar to most teens.

What did I hear at the discussions? "It was too hard to get through." "My kids wouldn't read it." "I didn't understand it." Now, all of these are perfectly legitimate reasons for not adding a book to your collection, where circ stats are key to knowing how you're going to develop your collection in the future. But for an award? I knew the minute I read it that given the Printz criteria and the committee's charge, that it would take an honor for that year if it didn't win the whole thing. Why? Because the Printz criteria, like the Newbery criteria, has nothing to do with how much the intended audience loves a book.

5. In general, I think Silvey's muchly-flawed article wants us to believe that the Newbery committee has a job to do that is not, in fact, in their charge. It is not the job of the Newbery committee to pick the book that will stay a favorite with generations of children. It is not the job of the Newbery committee to make sure that those small-town kids will love the Newbery winner. It is not the job of the "too many experts" on the Newbery Committee to pick the year's most perfect book for children.

Winning the Newbery Medal does not mean a book will automatically be loved or even remembered, or that all children should read it. (Why would anyone make such a ridiculous statement, that "every child" should read ANY given book, Newbery winner or not?) It means that in one particular year, that book made the most outstanding contribution to literature for children. Here's hoping school assignments catch up to that.

I do not think that award means what you think it means

Via one of my listservs, I found this entry from The Reading Zone. It's an entry I pretty much agree with, talking about the effect the No Child Left Behind act has on reading for pleasure. What I find odd are the comments from "safelibraries," who seems to have a very skewed idea of what the Printz award is given for.

The Reading Zone suggests that books like Printz winner Looking for Alaska and honor book Speak be read and discussed in classrooms, not instead of but along with the classics most high school students are assigned. SafeLibraries says, in one of his/her comments:

Regarding parents needing to be aware of things, you are correct. But right now ALA-awarded books are considered ideal without the need for parents to question the ALA. The parents are aware the books are award winning books and that’s enough to know. Parents are not yet aware that the ALA now awards books that parents would not want their children to read if they knew the true contents. That’s the rub.

Nowhere in the Printz criteria does it say that a winner or honor book is ideal for any one reader or even any one audience. The Printz is given for literary merit, meaning (to me) that it's not always what you say, but how you say it. I could have written a novel with the same ideas as Looking for Alaska, for example, but because John Green is a much better writer than I, he was able to give it a literary bent that I could not. Green's use of language is what made that book stand out. When the Printz committee awarded Alaska, it was because of the way Green conveyed his ideas and made his characters come to life. The Printz committee does not care what content is in a book. It's not their job to care, frankly. American Born Chinese has no sex in it at all, but Repossessed does (sort of). When the Printz committee grants the award, they are in no way saying that the winner is a book appropriate for all children 12-18. That would be ridiculous. No such book exists, regardless of content. Teens are too diverse for any one group of people to determine what is good for all. I would also say the same for the Newbery. The book that wins the Newbery is not going to be enjoyed by all children, and their parents might not deem it appropriate.

SafeLibraries continues:

Parents are supposed to judge books for their own children, while at the same time parents are misled as to the contents of those books.

I really don't get how giving a book an award would mislead any parent as to the content. The award is given for the way the book is written, not what topics it's written about. A parent picking up a book with an award medal on the cover will probably figure that the book is good because it is. A group of people who did nothing but read YA books for a year deemed that particular book the most outstanding contribution to the genre in that given year. But an award sticker cannot tell a parent how appropriate, or not, the book is for their child. Everyone's values are different.

SafeLibraries cites an article in which former YALSA president Pam Spencer Holley was quoted talking about the Gossip Girl books:

So I’m going to provide evidence that, to me, is clear and convincing.

Consider the following:

“The Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), the fastest growing division of the American Library Association (ALA), has announced a list of books to recommend to teens, both avid and reluctant readers, who are looking for books like Cecily von Ziegesar’s ‘Gossip Girl’ series.

“‘The books on this list are perfect for when your readers have finished with every “Gossip Girl” title in your library and are clamoring for another book like the Gossip Girl,’ said YALSA President Pam Spencer Holley.”
The press release goes on to say, “For nearly 50 years YALSA has been the world leader in selecting books, videos, and audiobooks for teens.” Fine. But why not also reveal that at a certain point along that timeline YALSA started recommending sexually inappropriate books for children, accompanied by glowing reviews that intentionally hide such inappropriate material? You buy these books in a bookstore and the store signs advise of inappropriate content. The ALA has no such advisories. This is another example why the ALA should no longer be considered authoritative when it comes to the recommendation of children’s books.

I have never seen signs in a bookstore advising that some content of YA books is explicit. Has anyone else? If so, where did you see them and what did they say?

Also, what is "sexually inappropriate?" And if the Gossip Girl series is just that, reader's advisory logic would dictate that those who love Gossip Girl would love other books that address the teen view of sex. "The ALA has no such advisories," but doesn't that speak to a belief that says that ultimately the teen (and the parent, if so desired) has to be the last word on what book is appropriate for him/her? There's a wide range of maturity in teens, and even in adults, and since librarians cannot address every single teen, the best we can do is recommend readalikes and let the reader decide.

In the meantime, here is YALSA's Printz Award page.

Unpopular opinions and the Edwards Award

Scroll down on this page to the link to "Edwards Award goes to controversial anti-gay author" at http://ypulse.com/archives/2008/01/ypulse_book_ess.php . YPulse's comment is: Ug. How did this happen? This feels like a mistake that no one will admit to.

You know what? If I were on this year's Edwards committee, I'd fully admit to that "mistake." Only it's not a mistake. Normally I like what YPulse has to say about books and reading, but in discussing the Edwards award they completely missed the mark.

Kimberly Paone and Roger Sutton are absolutely right in their statements to School Library Journal. The politically correct answer is that it's icky that Orson Scott Card got what is more or less the YALSA Lifetime Achievement Award for a book, but political correctness does not and should not have any bearing on the Edwards Award. If we hold Orson Scott Card to a certain standard then we must hold ALL the recipients to that standard, and that would be ridiculous because the scope of the award is not based on an author's life or personal thoughts. It's based on his or her art and contribution to the YA genre. There's a possibility that in 10 years, David Levithan will be given the Edwards for Boy Meets Boy, and couldn't the same argument be made then, that his writing about positive, fun GLBT characters is somehow wrong and corrupting of teenagers? I may not feel that way personally, but I guarantee that many people do today and will ten years from now. If Card should be chastised and denied an award for speaking his mind on GLBTQ people, then couldn't Levithan be chastised and denied that same award for doing the same, only in the opposite direction?

In many aspects of life librarians have to separate the personal from the professional. There's one author whose books I don't like at all and usually don't recommend, but I think the author is a great person. I hated more than one book I voted for at Popular Paperbacks this year because I knew that despite my dislike of them, they fit the charge of the committee perfectly. I review for Kirkus and VOYA and my separation of personal and professional is tested on a near-daily basis when writing for those publications. Giving awards and positive reviews to books and authors is almost never a black-and-white issue.

Try again, YPulse. It's not all about you.

Blogging live from the ALA Youth Media Awards

Schneider Family Award: Kami and the Yaks by Andrea Stryler for Young Children's Book, Reaching for Sun by Tracie Vaughn Zimmer for Middle Grades Book, Hurt Go Happy by Ginny Rorby for Teen Book

Theodor Seuss Geisel Award: Honors: First the Egg by Laura Vaccaro Seeger, Hello Bumblebee Bat by Darrin Lunde, Jazz Baby by Lisa Wheeler, Vulture View by April Sayre, Winner: There Is a Bird on Your Head! by Mo Willems

Coretta Scott King Award: Winner: Brendan Buckley's Universe and Everything in It by Sundee T. Frazier, Steptoe Award for New Talent Honors: November Blues by Sharon Draper, Twelve Rounds To Glory by Charles R. Smith Jr., King Author Award: Elijah of Buxton by Christopher Paul Curtis; Illustrator Honor: The Secret Olivia Told Me, Jazz on a Saturday Night ; Winner: Let it Shine by Ashley Bryan

Caldecott Award: Honors: Henry's Freedom Box by Kadir Nelson (illus.) and Ellen Levine, First the Egg by Lauren Seeger, The Wall by Peter Sis, Knuffle Bunny Too by Mo Willems Winner: The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick

Newbery Award: Honors: Elijah of Buxton by Christopher Paul Curtis, The Wednesday Wars by Gary Schmidt, Feathers by Jacqueline Woodson, Winner: Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! by Laura Amy Schlitz

Printz Award: Winner: The White Darkness by Geraldine McCaughrean Honors: Dreamquake by Elizabeth Knox, One Whole and Perfect Day by Judith Clark, Repossessed by A.M. Jenkins, Your Own Sylvia by Stephanie Hemphill

Edwards Award: Orson Scott Card, for Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow

Odyssey Awards: Honors: Bloody Jack, Dooby Dooby Moo, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Skulduggery Pleasant, Treasure Island. Winner: Jazz (Walter and Christopher Dean Myers)

Arbuthnot Lecturer: Walter Dean Myers

Batchelder Award: Honors: The Cat, or How I Lost Eternity by Julia Richter, Nicholas and the Gang by Rene Gosenny Winner: Brave Story by Miyuki Miyabe.

Sibert Medal: Honors: Nic Bishop Spiders, Lightship. Winner: The Wall by Peter Sis

Shortlists for the BCCLS Mock Awards 2008

These are the shortlists for the BCCLS Mock Awards, which will take place on January 3 and 4, 2008, at the New Milford Library. Happy reading!

For the Mock Caldecott (author, illustrator -- title):

Andreasen, Dan -- The Giant of Seville
Bateman, Donna -- Deep in the Swamp
Broach, Elise illus. by David Small -- When Dinosaurs Came with Everything
Bruel, Nick -- Poor Puppy
Cate, Annette Leblanc -- Magic Rabbit
Coffelt, Nancy, illus. by Tricia Tusa -- Fred Stays with Me
DiCamillo, Kate -- Great Joy
Florian, Douglas -- Comets, Stars, the Moon, and Mars
Goldberg, Myla, illus. by Chris Sheban -- Catching the Moon
Gutman, Dan -- Casey Back at Bat
Harrington, Janice, illus. by Shelley Jackson -- The Chicken-Chasing Queen of Lamar County
Keller, Holly -- Help! : A Story of Friendship
Lobel, Anita -- Nini Here and There
Newgarden, Mark and Megan Montague Cash -- Bow-Wow Bugs-a-Bug
Palatini, Margie, illus. by Steve Johnson & Lou Fancher -- The Cheese
Pixley, Marcella -- Freak
Prelutsky, Jack -- The Wizard
Rex, Adam -- Pssst!
Seeger, Laura Vaccaro Dog and Bear: two friends, three stories
Sherry, Kevin -- I’m the Biggest Thing in the Ocean
Stein, David Ezra -- Leaves
Thompson, Lauren, illus. by Jonathan Bean -- The Apple Pie That Papa Baked
Van Leeuween, Jean, illus. by Rebecca Bond -- Papa and the Pioneer Quilt
Willems, Mo -- Knuffle Bunny Too: A Case of Mistaken Identity


Mock Newbery (author -- title):

Compestine, Ying Chang -- Revolution is not a Dinner Party
Curtis, Christopher Paul -- Elijah of Buxton
Korman, Gordon -- Schooled
Miller, Sarah -- Miss Spitfire
Olson, Gretchen -- Call me Hope
Pennypacker, Sara -- The Talented Clementine
Pixley, Marcella -- Freak
Schmidt, Gary -- The Wednesday Wars
Selznick, Brian -- The Invention of Hugo Cabret
Tarshis, Lauren -- Emma-Jean Lazarus fell out of a Tree
Taylor, Laini -- Faeries of Dreamdark: Blackbringer
Woodson, Jacqueline -- Feathers
Zimmer, Tracy Vaughan -- Reaching for Sun


Mock Printz (author -- title):

Alexie, Sherman -- The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian
Brooks, Martha -- Mistik Lake
Dowd, Siobhan -- A Swift Pure Cry
Downham, Jenny -- Before I Die
Hemphill, Stephanie -- Your Own, Sylvia
Lyga, Barry -- Boy Toy
McCaughrean, Geraldine -- The White Darkness
Park, Linda Sue, et. al. -- Click
Rowling, J.K. -- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Schmidt, Gary -- The Wednesday Wars
Tan, Shaun -- The Arrival
Thompson, Kate -- The New Policeman

Keeping busy!

I just got back from slightly-more-than-a-week's vacation on Tuesday. I was in South Carolina visiting my in-laws and doing not much else but shopping, eating, getting new glasses (and hopefully new contacts soon, w00t!), and watching TV. Well, and working out. I took a very fun kickboxing class at the local Y.

Now that I'm back, it's crunch time for the Mock Awards, which are January 3 (Caldecott and Newbery) and 4 (Printz) at the New Milford library. The shortlists are done, and now I have to start publicizing them. I've read eight of the twelve books shortlisted for the Mock Printz, which is not too bad considering all the other reading I do. The president of BCCLS was at the office yesterday and she told me how much she liked one of my personal favorite books of the year, Boy Toy by Barry Lyga. The post of my favorite books of 2007 will come in December.

I'm also speed-reading for Popular Paperbacks for Young Adults. I'm reading for two lists this year, "Sex is a Touchy Subject" and "Get Your Game On," a sports list. I love that we're able to put together a list about teens' choices about sex. It's not just a touchy subject, but it's an important one, and one of the things we're working to ensure is that a wide variety of views about sex are represented. We want to keep the list positive and diverse, so there won't be lots of teen pregnancy stories but there will be romances (male/male, male/female, and female/female) and explorations of what sex is and how it affects us physically, emotionally, and socially.

On my lunch breaks, I'm reading Slash by Slash with Anthony Bozza. People are usually surprised when I tell them that my taste in music runs very similar to Dean Winchester's. I love classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin, Rush, AC/DC, Yes, Motorhead, and Blue Oyster Cult. I also like more modern bands with an edgy sound: Seether, Audioslave, Crossfade, etc., and for years I've liked Guns N' Roses and now, Velvet Revolver. I'm a percussionist by training, not a guitarist, but I believe that Slash is sort of a Jimi Hendrix for today, someone who's made the average person think long and hard about what the guitar can accomplish. So I picked up his autobiography and I'm sure it will be self-indulgent, overly detailed about the bad bad life of a rock star, and an enjoyable, quick read.