Category Archives: Book Notes

At Heavy Medal and at Born Librarian, Jonathan Hunt and Elizabeth Moreau both offer their views on whether a Graphic Novel can be considered for the Newbery (pretty much, yes, it can be considered but the winning chance is slim) and if so, how does one consider and weigh its merits against its intrinsic weaknesses: namely, lack of expository paragraphs, textual settings, other descriptive languages, since most of the text in a graphic novel is in dialog form.

Jonathan’s opinions are closer to mine — that we must judge and examine the text of a graphic novel as what it is and what it does and not ask it to be something else.  Elizabeth’s method of covering up illustrations in graphic novels or typing up just the text to read serves some purposes, but I would say that does not respect the fact that the text is MEANT to be viewed with the illustrations as a whole.  The authors of graphic novels (usually) are the originators of the stories, whether the books are illustrated by the authors themselves or by other artists.  (Traditionally, few graphic novel writers are illustrators.  But Children’s book world seems to be upsetting that tradition quite a bit!)  I have studied the “behind the scenes” process of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman series (included in the Absolute Sandman volumes.)  Neil Gaiman gives out copious notes of scene directions, settings, “camera angles,” etc. to the illustrators.  I don’t think that’s how all authors work.  But, to think that the graphic novelists only write dialogs and a few text boxes of descriptions of settings is to discount the rich creative palette of the authors.  They have to make the same choices as any prose novelists do: the details of the world the story is set in, the characters that play off of each other: their personalities and voices, the events that unfold to propel the plot and to unveil thematic matters, etc.  In fact, there is so much self-editing and paring down that a graphic novelist must do that some prose novelists can never successfully achieve.

So, I say, do not judge the apple and demand that it should be bursting with citrusy juice and do not demand a lemon to be sweet and crunchy.

When I examine graphic novel texts: I read the whole book as IS.  No covering of any panel illustrations.  No thinking that the text MUST STAND ALONE.  And No demanding that the theme must help the readers to “gain a greater understanding of what it means to be human” (Jonathan’s words).  Let’s just look at how well the text does its job: do the dialogs capture the personalities and voices of different characters?  Does the PLOT engage, move along at the right pace, help the readers grasp the theme and offer clear causal-effect relationships, etc.?  Are the settings clearly defined and serving the story well (yes, we see the pictures, but we also understand that there are “directions” from the creators to direct the artists of the settings): for example, are things always taking place inside a room or events happen all around the story universe: whichever is appropriate to the “story at hand”?

I am reminded of the recent Newbery winner, Good Masters, Sweet Ladies.  The “setting” is done with separate historical nonfiction passages, accompanied by detailed illustrations, while the main body of the text is presented as monologs (or dialogs) that do not even progress with a linear plot line.  The book must have been  examined by that year’s Newbery Committee on its own merits: how effective are the monologs, how accurate and interesting to the intended audience are the nonfiction passages, and how clearly and movingly as a whole the various “voices” bring a medieval manor town to life by the author’s choices of “characters” and their interior struggles and exterior interplays.  I imagine that the members of that Committee found great success in each aspect pertaining to that specific book and not a general notion of “what a good kids’ book should look like.”

I feel that I’ve clarified for myself how I should consider Graphic Novels as a Newbery committee member — but, will the other members (including Elizabeth) consider them the same way?  And will we agree on whether a text is successful even if we do agree on these principles?  Reading is such a subjective experience.  I am more excited than ever to hear other opinions and to convince or to be convinced or to accept that we civilly disagree with each other perpetually!

One of the hardest thing for a Newbery committee member to consider is how to fairly and effectively evaluate a new book that belongs in a series.  The traditional wisdom passed down unofficially from year to year is: whether the book can “stand on its own (merits).”  Meaning: if a reader coming to this book without prior knowledge of the characters or plot development progression, will he or she be able to fully appreciate the book at hand. If the reader does not need the previous books to be fully immersed in the present title, then, it has a better chance to be considered seriously for the award.  If, on the other hand, one feels somewhat lost or disconnected due to unfamiliarity with the whole series, the book’s chance for being a top contender is slim to none.

This leaves me wonder, though.  In a way, isn’t the success of a sequel sometimes marked by being quite “dependent” on the previous volumes?  The complexity of the characters and character relationships might make a new reader puzzled but it is exactly what an old acquaintance of the series looks for to deepen an already rich experience.  Intense plot lines that were left unresolved at the end of the previous volume should not need a whole chapter of “recalls” to set up the scenes for this current volume.  Such recalling passages, forced on the author who just wants to continue developing a complete story line, can be tedious and obstructs the flow of the tale.  So, in a way, “not standing on its own” should be considered a merit to a book that is a sequel as part of a grand tale.  I am reading a sequel to a story that has been told in previous four volumes.  I find the book deeply satisfying — love to see old characters referenced, love to see new potential conflicts developing based on old relationships and events, love to see the storytelling tone that is unique to the series being picked up again and so consistent with the rest of the series.  At the same time, I keep wondering: how would someone who’s never read a single volume of this series react to the information revealed on these pages?  If I suggested this title, will it be a delight for most of the other 14 members or will it be an unwelcomed burden?  And — do I care either way?

There are fifteen people on the Committee, with vastly different tastes (some love fantasy and sci-fi, others would not touch these without some seriously coercion,) and usually only a few would have read the previous titles of any series.  How should we then proceed with a suggestion  or even nomination of a book that is part of a series and unfamiliar to many?  Should we all read and catch up with the previous books in the series so to judge whether this new volume fits beautifully with the whole picture?  Should we insist on the book’s “making complete sense” to a brand new reader of the series?  Do we trust the few committee members around the table to tell everyone how the book fit with the grand scheme of the series?  Do we ignore them because they are already “biased” and probably are considering the whole series and not simply the book at hand (which is our charge)?

It has been a conundrum for ages and I imagine will be for eternity (in Newbery Land.)  As for me?  I’m going to finish this wonderful sequel that has kept me engrossed the moment I started reading the book and I won’t be able to tell the world whether I suggest it to my committee or not.  Just you know that either way it is going to be a tough decision!