On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I like the idea of a thread of "what we are reading," but a critical
> comment would be helpful. Not just "recommended" or "not recommended"
> but what you liked about it.
and
> I have a 9 year old daughter and I am catching up on children's
> literature quite a bit. When I left children's literature I didn't
> look back. I got into the picture books like Goodnight Moon when my
> kids were babies, but now I am reading the next level like the Ramona
> books. Some of it is just ghastly. Like the stories they write to
> sell a doll or related toy. But other books are quite good. I have
> noticed that a Newberry or Caldecott award are no guarantee of
> quality, and the lack thereof is no shame. I bet somebody on the list
> has the inside dope on that fact.
I'm wondering now which Newberry or Caldecott winners are lower in
quality. Can you elaborate?
As far as children's books go, I grew up with Laura Ingalls Wilder's
"Little House" series, and they've come up with not one, but 4 more series
(her mother, her grandmother, her great-grandmother, and her daughter).
I've read the 7th book in the series about her daughter (_On the Banks of
the Bayou_), which was written after the author of the earlier ones died,
and done from his outline, and it just isn't as good. And there is a
gimmick to the whole thing, but it's more to sell more *books* than
anything else, as far as I can tell, so it's not as bad as the ones
designed to get you to buy other stuff. (American Girl, anyone? And those
are so darn formulaic!)
Julia
whose favorite Newberry-award winner is probably _Caddie Woodlawn_
