My little sister is currently reading Romeo and Juliet for school, and when I think of this issue of which award is more prestigious, I can't help but envision the Caldecotts vs. the Newberys, as though the awards are rival factions. But in truth, neither award is better than the other. They honor different types of books, and to say one is better than the other is to declare picture books and longer fiction to be in competition. They are, to use the cliche, apples and oranges. They both are wonderful things in which to indulge, but they have different flavors and benefits.
The Caldecott honors exemplary illustrations for books, whereas the Newbery honors writing in longer works. I do not limit either to fiction in this differentiation, because books of poetry and nonfiction have been winners. For those people who think length determines the worth of a book, and therefore give the Newbery preference, I would point to those shorter works of poetry and to the recent Caldecott winner, the giant of a book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, as exceptions to that rule. The differences between the Caldecott and the Newbery are not important -- both honor works of art that belong on our library shelves and in our collective memories.
No comments:
Post a Comment