We've talked about great children's literature before, but I thought I'd bring it up again.

The Newbery Medal Winners, 2007, were announced a few weeks ago. The members of the book groups I'm in are going to be talking about Newbery winners at our next meeting. I've asked them all to read this year's winner as well as one of the winners from when they were around 10 years old.

I'm wondering how many of you have read several of the book on this auspicious list and what you've thought of them.

I have read most of the winners, actually, back to at least 1950 or so. I took it on as a reading challenge when I was in grad school. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

When our children were young, we wondered how to find good books for them. Se we got the list of Newberry winners, and picked up as many as we could. We'd go to a huge used-book sale every year, armed with the Newberry list (marked to show what we already had), and look for them.

As a result, we have a near-complete collection of the Newberry winners up to that time. And since we had to know which were age-appropriate as our children grew, I've read most of them. (Maybe I'll make a list. By the way, here's a list of winners only, excluding the honorable mentions.)

CW, you really should read the 1936 Medal Winner, Caddie Woodlawn by Carol Ryrie Brink.

I recall reading a bunch of these when I was younger, but I don't see too many on the list. I read Holes by Louis Sachar a few years ago, since he wrote a bunch of other books I enjoyed as a child. In school I read The Giver, Shiloh, Sarah, Plain and Tall, and possible one or two others, all the way back to Island of the Blue Dolphins and Johnny Tremain. I read A Wrinkle In Time on my own, when I was about 12, and Rabbit Hill around the same time. The latter was one of my favorite books as a child.

quote:

CW, you really should read the 1936 Medal Winner, Caddie Woodlawn by Carol Ryrie Brink.

I love Caddie Woodlawn! Excellent book!

I just counted - I've read 55 of the 85 winners. I might have read more, but reading the titles the stories don't come immediately to mind.

As Shu said, until about 2000, we've read them all, but I'll pick out a few of my favorites:

The Cat Who Went to Heaven
The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle
Caddie Woodlawn
Daniel Boone
Call It Courage
The Matchlock Gun
Little Town on the Prairie (an Honor Book; we have all of Laura Ingalls Wilder books, and my oldest daughter (in her 20s) was just checking on that recently.
Rabbit Hill
Strawberry Girl
Miss Hickory
The Twenty One Balloons
Old Yeller (Newberry Honor)
Rifles for Watie
Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH
Frog and Toad Together (Newberry Honor)
Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry
Bridge to Terabithia
A Gathering of Days: A New England Girl's Journal, 1830-1832
Jacob Have I Loved
Sarah, Plain and Tall
Hatchet (Newberry Honor)
The Winter Room (Newberry Honor)
Number the Stars
Shiloh
The Giver
A Long Way from Chicago (Newberry Honor...of course I'd like that!)

...Just to name a few. I haven't read some of the real recent ones, unfortunately. Most of them are wonderful, though.

Yes, the Honor books are good to include if you're looking for great reads. Usually they are as good (or sometimes, IMHO, better) than the winners. The process for choosing the winners is really complex, and sometimes no one's favorite is the winner, but rather a compromise amongst the committee members.

I suppose partly because I have no children and partly because the iist is of American books, I had to go back to 1923 to find a book I'd read. That was The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle by Hugh Lofting. I saw a few (very few) names of authors and titles I recognised, though.

As a fan and collector of children's books I was astonished at how few I've ever even heard of- a grand total of three, of which I've read one. Like arnie I can only assume that it's because the list is almost exclusively American and almost completely unheard of anywhere else.

The first one I know (but haven't read) is Charlotte's Web in 1953.

Then, still not read, we get back to 1938 and Pecos Bill.


Then, same book as arnie, I know and HAVE read Doctor Doolittle.

I'm also out of touch; I haven't read most of these. I've only read three: Lloyd Alexander's The Black Cauldron, which I still love, Charlotte's Web, and Bridge to Terabithia - I saw the trailer for the movie and it doesn't look anything like the book I remember.

Apart from Dr Dolittle (wonderful) I have heard only of Little House on the Prairie.

It's an American list and contains mostly American authors' works.

I suspect a UK list would be similarly skewed towards UK authors' titles.

quote:

The first one I know (but haven't read) is Charlotte's Web in 1953.

That's one I recognised, too. Hasn't a film (movie) of the book just been released?

These are interesting responses to the Newbury list. My wife's graduate advisor was on the Newbury committee and had a lot of interesting stories to tell about why one book got the medal and another didn't (short answer: politics, zeitgeist). The list is strongly skewed towards American writers and "important" but not revolutionary books -- the kind you were assigned in Junior High English class. My wife's area of concentration was children's literature, so I'm familiar with a lot of these books although I've only read three of them, but I've never heard of half of them, and even fewer of the Honor books.

quote:

Bridge to Terabithia - I saw the trailer for the movie and it doesn't look anything like the book I remember.

The movie of Mrs. Frisbie and the Rats of NIMH (remade as The Secret of NIMH) was almost diametrically opposite to the book. In the book, science and technology are the route to a better life and, ultimately, to independence. The movie's theme, however, is the triumph of mysticism over evil science. To me, that was a terrible perversion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

I looked at the list of Carnegie Medal winners (a British award for children's literature) and only recognized three of the books on the list, but my wife tells me we own about thirty of them.

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:
I looked at the list of Carnegie Medal winners (a British award for children's literature) and only recognized three of the books on the list, but my wife tells me we own about thirty of them.

Read Seven, Own Six, Recognised about six others.

We have all of these books in the middle school library where I work, but for the most part, they don't get checked out much. "The Giver" gets checked out regularly because it is required reading in 7th grade. "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" and "Number the Stars" get checked out too. But that's about it. If they gave awards based on what the kids are checking out and stealing from us, the award would go to the "Bluford series" of books and vampire books like the "Cirque du Freak" series by Darren Shan and "Twilight" & "New Moon" by Stephenie Meyer. We can not keep these books on the shelf.

LOL - I know what you mean, Sock. Other books in my own library that would win awards would be Junie B. Jones books, Captain Underpants and other series by Dav Pilkey, Cheetah Girls and That's So Raven books, and everything by Sharon Draper . . . but she has won awards, too. Still, I do think the Newberys tend to be very well-written (if often tragic) books.

I can't believe I forgot Charlotte's Web...one of my favorites. My kids also loved Peter Pan. We still use the phrase, "It's kind of a compliment, when you think about it."

quote:

can only assume that it's because the list is almost exclusively American

Correct. One of the criteria is that the book is an original work (no translations), first edition, published in the US.

I never realized how divided the children's book publishing world must be.

In looking at the list for Carnegie Medal Winners and I've read 8 of them. There are many I've not heard of, even some where I know the author's works (or thought I did)! I've requested some of the titles from my library and will take a look. Does anyone know why no award was given in 1966?

quote:

Correct. One of the criteria is that the book is an original work (no translations), first edition, published in the US.

So what's Dr Dolittle doing on the list?

quote: "One of the criteria is that the book is an original work (no translations), first edition, published in the US." So what's Dr Dolittle doing on the list?

"by 1912 Hugh Lofting ... returned to America, married Flora Small, and settled in New York City to begin a writing career." The War took him back to Europe, but it sounds like he was back in the US when it came time to publish his first book. (Edit: The ALA site lists the publisher as "Stokes," a New York house, but I can't verify that it was not earlier-published elsewhere.)

The current criteria, last revised 1987, require that the author be a US citizen or resident, and that "books originally published in other countries are not eligible." However, these requirements may not have been part of the original criteria, those at the time of Lofting's work; see here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

I wouldn't consider Lofting (born in Maidenhead) to be an American any more than I would consider P G Wodehouse to be American (even though he spent probably half his life in the USA and eventually took US citizenship).

To my mind the country of birth should be the determinant.

quote:

To my mind the country of birth should be the determinant.

Uh-oh. My sister is going to be surprised to learn that she is Japanese.

quote:

To my mind the country of birth should be the determinant.

But in this case you are not making the rules.

Good point, CW.

There are famous Americans who were born in other countries, and vice versa.

Would you consider Hitler to be Austrian?

Would you consider Hitler to be Austrian?

Or would you consider Somerset Maugham French, Joseph Conrad Polish, Golda Meir Ukrainian, Éamon de Valera American, Prince Philip Greek, Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell Indian, John Ford Irish, et al.

quote:

But in this case you are not making the rules.

I realise that and am not suggesting they are wrong. It's a subject on which there will be many opinions.

My late father was born in Germany (of British parents) and under the rules of nationality that prevailed at the time, he had dual nationality. Had he been in Germany in 1914 (he left in 1911) or 1939, he'd had had to fight for Germany - although, to the day he died, he spoke not a word of German. But it wasn't until he was in his sixties that he re-visited the country of his birth.

The topic is a far from simple one - and the only sure determinant is the actual country of birth - although even then there are pitfalls. What would be the nationality of someone born in, say, Yugoslavia - a country that no longer exists?

Incidentally, I wonder why Wodehouse doesn't appear in the children's book list? Is it that his children's books (such as the Psmith novels) are aimed at too old an age-group?

Weren't the Psmith books written early on in his career (1910 or thereabouts - I haven't checked)? If that's the case Wodehouse was living in the UK then.

Which shows how tricky it is to decide. Wodehouse, like Lofting, spent a lot of time in both the USA and the UK.

Of course, I don't know what the full rules are for this particular hierarchy.

quote:

My late father was born in Germany

Oh that's common in the U.S. My grandfather was born in Ireland, my grandmother was born in Scotland, and Ken's father was born in Russia.

It's not uncommon in the UK, either - but my point was simply that the rules about nationality are often complex and, I am sure, will vary from country to country.

Well, there is a lot of hubbub about this year's Newbery Winner, The Higher Power of Lucky, all because the book has the word scrotum in it - on the first page, no less!

Maybe this should be our next book for the discussion! I read it and discussed it at my Friday Night Bookgroup just last night. Excellent book, great discussion! My friend and former co-worker, Jeri, was the head of the committee that chose the book to win. I'd love to hear what you all think, especially in light of the controversy.

Asa sent me a copy of this well-written and amusing article from the SF Chronicle, if you'd like a little more information.

I think we should ban all discussion of sex and genitalia. Indeed, I think we should ban sex in the USA altogether.

That would ensure that there wouldn't be another generation of prudes with nothing better to do but fuss about references to people's bodily parts.

On the contrary, I have promised myself that I will find as many occasions to use the word scrotum as I possibly can! Of course, it's challenging to find a reason to use the word scrotum when talking with my staff that won't also get me in trouble for sexual harrassment - but I'm creative enough to find a way to make it work.

I have found this whole discussion about banning the book ridiculous. What a bunch of prissies. After all, the scrotum is just another body part, albeit a sexual one. However, I've not seen this hullaballoo about the word "breast."

I will answer you privately, Richard, because I don't want to start another anti-American tirade, but I do have some thoughts on your almost-as-prissy comment.

quote:

I will answer you privately, Richard, because I don't want to start another anti-American tirade, but I do have some thoughts on your almost-as-prissy comment.

I haven't read your PM yet but I will admit here and now that I have broken the rule I once set myself of not making jokes on international boards. Humour so often does not translate - as this posting seems to show.

Just in case anyone is still in any doubt, it was a "joke".

I assumed you were joking, RE.

I had hoped to keep this in the PMs, but now that Richard has said something here, making me look like another whining, humorless American, I will make my point publicly.

To begin with, of course Richard was joking; there was never any question of that, and we all knew it.

I was addressing the "USA" comment. There are prudes across the pond, too, as well as all over the world. Once, twice, three, four, five times...we'd all be fine with hearing about U.S. frailties. No problem. We can laugh at ourselves, too, over here. However, Richard, you continually criticize the U.S., and as an administrator, I've received far too many messages about it (not only from U.S. posters, by the way). So, please, in the interest of harmony on the board, stem the criticism.

In my private message to Richard, I reminded him of how I used to bring up epicaricacy way too much. I sensed that people were getting irritated, and therefore I stopped. I am hoping that Richard will do the same.

Sorry for the diversion, and let's get back to words!

quote:

I was addressing the "USA" comment.

The mention was of the USA because it was a US organisation that had complained about the use of the word in a US book. Had it been something that had happened in any other country then that would have been the nationality that I mentioned. That was the whole point of the joke but as I have said, I shall not try to post jokes on this board again since I too often receive criticism about the "anti-American" stance of my humour.

I am not anti-American and I certainly don't "continually" criticise the USA, although the USA, like any other country, is certainly not beyond criticism. I have to say, here and now, that one of the things that irritates me is to be accused of being anti-American. I have travelled to the USA more often than most Americans who post here have travelled to the UK and consider I know the country and its people fairly well. If I were anti-American then the last thing I would want to do is to visit the place; there's plenty of other countries in the world and I've only visited about fifty of them as yet.

There have been plenty of postings, on this and other boards, which I could, were I too be oversensitive about the issue, be construed to be anti-British. I do not get into a huff about them - if I feel that comment is called for then I will comment appropriately an in a level-headed fashion. Nobody has ever seen me express anger on this or any other board - nor will anybody. Before that happens I will leave - as I have already left other boards where personal attack becomes common.

Please, Richard. Can we keep this private? I had tried to do that in the first place.

I have nothing to hide about myself and my opinions. I will, of course, keep private any comments that have passed between myself and others via email or pm.

I do not think that any of my comments here are of that nature.

But back to the original topic...


I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's perfectly obvious the book shouldn't have used the word scrotum. The correct word was bollocks. (Hope no-one is offended. I'd hate to be taken off children's reading lists!)

quote:

The correct word was bollocks

Or even dog's-bollocks ;-)

Well, I found this conversation very late in the day, or its life, but--

I am only certain of having read 11 of the books on the Newbery Award list, and only two on the Carnegie Medal list. I've probably read more of them, but don't remember. I absolutely loved The Borrowers (wasn't there a series of them?) and The Last Battle. In fact, when I was about 40 or something, one of my sons made me read the entire Narnia series. When I told him I thought they were Christian allegories, he was crushed--a budding atheist he was. Among the Newberys, I read every Laura Ingalls Wilder book at about age 10 or 11, Charlotte's Web, Misty of Chincoteague, Miss Hickory and others. We loved all the Frog and Toad books when our kids were little and still talk about "Tearwater Tea," in which Frog gathers the water for his tea by thinking about sad things until he has cried enough tears to make a pot. One of the saddest things was "Mashed potatoes left on a plate, because nobody wanted to eat them." We still quote that line around here.

I also loved the entire biography section in the children's room of my local library as a child, and read a book called Kit Carson, Boy Trapper about 10 times. Can't tell you who wrote it though.

I'm surprised none of the Harry Potters made either list. I've read all of them too, even at this advanced age. And every single Mary Poppins. Was P.L. Travers too early for the British list?

As for the scrotum debate, well, how ridiculous! Now it would be worth getting flapped if a children's book had said a rattlesnake bit the dog on the balls. But scrotum? The child readers frequently observe dog scrota in the flesh, so why should the word for that body part be verboten?

Well I guess it's time to go borrow a copy of The Borrowers and read that again.

Cheers--
And peace to all Wordcrafters on both sides of the Big Atlantic Tank!

Wordmatic

After vowing to use the word "scrotum" as often as possible in conversation, I find that it's trickier than I thought it would be! You'd be surprised how seldom I have any reason to talk about a dog's private parts, or about another human's. I'll keep working on that, though!

Yes, WM, the Borrowers was one of a whole series of the books. I love them, too! I had forgotten about the Frog and Toad line about mashed potatoes, but I have to say that just last night at dinner my travelling companion left some on her plate, and it seemed a horrible shame. Didn't quite cry a tea pot's worth of tears, but it was a shame, nonetheless. All garlicy and buttery and such.

I can see how that might be difficult:

"Good morning, sir. How's your scrotum today?"

"Did you hear the one about the scrotum and the octopus?"

"Thank you for your attention in this matter. Scrotally yours,
John Smith"

I'm sure others can come up with better suggestions for CW!

Wordmatic

Well, it's better than a poke in the scrotum (with a sharp stick.)

That the way the scrotum hangs.

A scrotum in the hand is worth....nah, I've gone too far with this

Notice the men are not flocking to join ghis conversation...

You're a biologist. Is the female counterpart of the scrotum the labia or the ovaries? I'm trying to figure out how uncomfortable this conversation may be making those of opposite gender. Wouldn't bother me at all if it were ovaries...

WM

The female counterpart of the scrotum are the labia (hence the raphe); the female counterpart of testicles are the ovaries.

Well, then, let's just say (instead), "Good morning Mr. Pontoon. How's your raphe today?" Sounds so much less threatening, and I guess there is more than one of them in any human body, so it's nice and ambiguous.

I do apologize if any of my Tips for Caterwauller have made anybody cringe.

Wordmatic