In case you don’t regularly follow Heavy Medal and Calling Caldecott, I suggest that if you are interested in the two awards or just in thinking deeply about children’s books, you might want to reconsider. I do know it can be challenging to read hard-hitting critical analysis of books you adore, but the moderators of these two blogs are really only putting out in public what happens during both committees’ deliberations in private. Right now there are a couple of posts that are particularly thought provoking, at least to me.
First of all, there is Jonathan Hunt’s guest post over at Calling Caldecott, “In defense of graphic novels.” Now, of course, as it is Jonathan he is being provocative, but he is making some very powerful points. I thought he’d convinced me until today when commentator Brandin took Jonathan on sufficiently well to make me step back a bit and rethink the whole thing. That is, I’d been all behind Jonathan’s argument for GNs being Caldecott contenders until Brandin made some very good points on how different they are from picture books.
And then there is Nina Lindsay’s post over at Heavy Medal, “It’s an Honor,” in which she addresses the way some (Jonathan, for one) who comment that they think a particular contender would be a great honor book, but not the medal. I wrote:
Hear, hear. I am completely in agreement with you, Nina. When I was on the Committee I nominated seven books I felt deserved to win — gold or silver, it didn’t matter. However, of course, there is also strategy going on (as Jonathan has written about when describing his decisions for mock nominations here) and so what ends up where is a result too of individual strategy and working toward consensus. I have never been able to understand how someone could go into the process already having decided something is an Honor but not the Medal.
Nina, I always remember something you said to our 2008 Committee regarding the oppositional tension we needed to have — to both be fierce in our passionate love and arguments for our nominees and equally open to letting them go without misery as we worked toward consensus. My personal goal (which I achieved) when on that Committee was to be happy with our choices. I just wonder how you can do that if you go in having two tiers of books.
Good comments on all sides of the issue there too.