"Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover"

I found this while searching information for the Schneider Family Award. I found it particularly intriuging because one of the criteria for a good book is a good cover... but aren't we always told not to judge a book by its cover?

[Information is from Schneider Family Book Award Manual obtained 2/24/2009 at www.ala.org/ala/awardsgrants/awardsrecords/schneideraward/schneiderawardmanual.doc]

How to Spot a Great Picture Book

Dilys Evans has been providing advice to young artists since 1978, when she founded Dilys Evans Fine Illustration. Below is a summary of that advice—10 characteristics that she believes all outstanding picture books have in common. Use it as a guide as you evaluate the picture books in your collection.

1. In the Beginning Was the Word

The pictures must be truly inspired by the story.

2. Preparation Is Paramount

The artist knows his or her characters, subject, and the setting inside and out.

3. A Great Cover Is a Great Start

If the cover art is compelling, it will make the viewer pick up the book and turn the pages.

4. The Artist Sets the Scene before the Story Begins

The inside flap offers a great opportunity to set the stage for the story or introduce a character.

5. The Endpapers Involve the Reader

Endpapers are another opportunity to add to the story or overall design of the book.

6. The Medium Is the Message

The perfect choice of medium to illustrate the text should convey every mood and nuance.

7. Every Picture Tells the Story

Every image is central to the story and moves it forward to the next page.

8. The Book Is a Form of Dramatic Art

Every scene must be carefully chosen to dully illustrate the drama and excitement of the story as is unfolds.

9. Art and Type Should Be a Perfect Marriage

The typeface should seem to be almost an extension of the art itself.

10. White Space Rules!

White space is a compositional element and not just a background to present the art.

That's What She Said

So, as I'm reading this week's material in preparation for class, I can't help feeling like my words in class are being echoed by Aronson's article. He says over and over again that the Coretta Scott King award in fact may hinder the "quality" of African American literature that is out there because of its awarding credentials. This argument that he is making is one that I brought up when we were reading the Nikki Giovanni poem at the beginning of the semester. Who is to say that I haven't had the same/similar experiences as you, even though my skin color is different?

Here are some of the particularly strong quotes from that reading that have got me a little bit revved back up on this insider/outsider debate. It brings a whole different view to the dichotomy that we've been given, really.

"The creator's biography--ethnic credentials, if you will--predetermines the book's validity...It is the wrong way to bring more kinds of books to more kinds of reasers; it is wrong in that it does not evaluate literature in its own terms but by extraneous standards; it is wrong because it is a very slippery slope down which we are already tumbling; and finally it is wrong because even as ALA sponsors more and more such awards, we have not openly discussed and debated their merits" [Aronson, Marc Slippery Slopes and Proliferating Prizes The Horn Book Magazine; May/Jun 2001]**Note, all following quotes are from the same article

"By insisting on testing the racial identity of its winners, the CSK shifts its focus from literature to biography. Who you are, which box or boxes you check on the census form, comes first. Your community, your ethnicity, comes before your talent."

"If you have to be black to win the award, do you have to be black to appreciate the winning book? The imlication that only blacks can write well about blacks sets up the implication that only they can read well about them, too."

"We should do everything in our power to encourage growth of a more diverse literature, not by predefining who will create it. We should do our best to encourage all readers to be receptive to every brand of literature. Which also means that we must be open to great art, no matter who creates it."

The article goes on and on reiterating the same points listed here... quality literature should be determined by its content, not by the person writing it. If the person is an "insider" and has poor quality literature, that is reflecting poorly on the awards that are given to the book, and on the community. I do like how Aronson points out two awards that are given to the "identity" of the book, not the identity of the author. This, to me, is what we should consider to be quality literature--those books that represent the identity of the culture they are trying to portray, not necessarily the identity of the author.

Lastly, from the article, a quote to sum up the argument made there, and here in this oh so scholarly blog, "My suggestion is this: keep the CSK, Belpré, and Asian-American awards, but honor content alone, not identity" [of the author].

The next article we read is from Andrea Davis Pinkney--directly combating Aronson's ideas listed in his article. She says "...these awards provide a solid ground upon which authors and illustrators of color and the library and publishing companies can stand." I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Aronson said that NO books by African American authors could receive these awards. Instead, he was arguing that the literary quality of the books were not being judged. I think that his ideas had been misinterpreted. Or, maybe the way I feel about this is slightly different than both authors here. While Aronson is saying that awards should be given if the literature is quality--not necessarily if the author's identity is the same as the characters in the book, Pinkney is saying that the quality of the book shouldn't matter, and anyone who writes a book should be able to be honored, because of their ethnic identity. So, is that saying then that I should be able to win any type of literary award for something I write about a white middle class girl? I don't necessarily think so.

I also do not think that Aronson was "attacking these awards", nor insulting "the creative talents of those who have won these prizes and the committiees who work so ahrd to select the winners". I think he was simply pointing out that to have an award, it should be judged on the quality of the literature--not on the biography of the author, and I believe that it's fair to say. While literature that is written by someone of the same ethnic background as some characters in the story may be more "authentic" or "quality" to some members of some cultures--there are people who can attest to the fact that "insiders" may be just as misinformed as "outsiders" sometimes. Thus continues our debate of exactly what an insider or outsider really is... and whether or not books should be written by insiders or outsiders. Hmm.

What Would You Do?

Ok, I have just spent about 15 minutes trying to get the darn video to post on here and it won't let me unless I upload it from my desktop. Hmm!! Any ideas?
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/would-you-speak-out-about-racism/14220409

Watch this link, though. The video is SO interesting. I just so happened to be watching ABC tonight and the show about testing people's moral values came on. I turned it on in the middle of the episode and saw the portion that included the last half of this video, the housing discrimination of Arab-Americans. I found this absolutely appalling! The show reported that only one in three people confronted the lady about her actions. While this is against the law, it does still happen. Yet another thing in my life I can't do without thinking of this class!

"Why Can't He Just Sing About Being WHITE?"

So, like I said the other day in class--I will never be able to read anything, or even watch another TV show, listen to another song without pondering its quality EVER again. This rings true in that I am a die hard country music fan. I absolutely LOVE Tim McGraw, he has great music [not to mention he isn't too bad on the eyes]. I was in the car yesterday on my way home from work and was jamming to "Indian Outlaw" when a thought came across my mind of "this song is terrible!" I thought, oh crap here I go judging everything again after TE 448. I'm never going to like this song again. I wish I would have discovered this when we were still talking about Native Americans, but I figure it's interesting and relevant. I will post a few of the lyrics before going more into my commentary on it.

I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind

All my friends call me Bear Claw
The Village Chieftain is my paw-paw
He gets his orders from my maw-maw
She makes him walk the line

You can find me in my wigwam
I'll be beatin' on my tom-tom
Pull out the pipe and smoke you some
Hey and pass it around

'Cause I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind

I ain't lookin' for trouble
We can ride my pony double
Make your little heart bubble
Lord like a glass of wine

I remember the medicine man
He caught runnin' water in my hands
Drug me around by my headband
Said I wasn't her kind

'Cause I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind

I can kill a deer or buffalo
With just my arrow and my hickory bow
From a hundred yard don't you know
I do it all the time

They all gather 'round my teepee
Late at night tryin' to catch a peek at me
In nothin' but my buffalo briefs
I got 'em standin' in line

'Cause I'm an Indian outlaw
Half Cherokee and Choctaw
My baby she's a Chippewa
She's one of a kind

Cherokee people
Cherokee tribe
So proud to live
So proud to die

_________________________________
Ok, I bolded the parts that I found particularly offensive, particularly from the articles we read for class that told us what "bad" stories consisted of. Now, I wonder if he is trying to depict a "real" scenario from the past, or of Indians now? He claims his father is a chief--typical! Also talks about a lot of the stereotypes of Indians: smoking "a pipe", living in a teepee, killing deer and buffalo all the time. Was this accurate at some point? I don't know, I'm not an "insider". However, I did find an "insider" view of this on a message board by doing a quick google search for the controversy dealing with this song. Here is the link I found the quote, "Well, my opinion is: If any one cares... I hate it. Why can't he sang about being WHITE? Just my opinion, no offense meant."--by "palefacehater" [hmm...?] Also, "Yeah that song is typical of older then dirt stereotypes about NDNs. So do I find the song offensive - somewhat. But do I think radio'll quit playing it - no"--by Singing Eagle.

So, now I've got an insider view on the things that I was fearing about the song--some radios, however, did threaten to take it off the air, according to this Wikipedia article.

Finally, on the Country Music Television website, I found a blurb about how the song was seen as controversial at the time it was released [1994]
"From the release of his second album Not a Moment Too Soon, Tim McGraw's rambunctious single "Indian Outlaw" made him a star in 1994. Written by John D. Loudermilk, some claimed the song degraded the accepted image of the American Indian. Despite controversy over the Native American stereotypes presented in the lyrics, "Indian Outlaw" reached No. 8 on the country charts and No. 15 on the pop charts. Controversy rarely hurts sales, and the recording -- with its war dance and rhythmic drum beat --quickly gave McGraw his first No. 1 country album. "


So, this class has forced my brain to think of everything in this analytical way. I haven't decided yet if this is a good thing. I do think that it will be a positive thing for my classroom someday, but I hope it doesn't cause me to dislike some of my favorite things [books, TV shows, and songs]!
Sorry for the long post, I just felt like I needed to put it out there.

So Now I Have No Idea What To Do...

A few weeks ago in class we were talking about "quality" literature and multicultural/diverse literature. We had a mini discussion on whether or not to include literature that wasn't considered good quality but still represented some of the children in your classrooms. From my understanding of the things we discussed, most of us thought it was OK to do so, so that the students feel represented. However, after today's class I feel conflicted because this text about Arab Americans was in fact written by an insider and therefore according to last week's discussion, should be more accurate. However accurate it was to her own culture, it was discriminatory to Jewish people. So, my question then is who are we trying to please? Are we ever going to be able to please everyone? What are we supposed to do in our classrooms---if we put literature in our classrooms that is not necessarily good quality, we could end up having the reverse effects of what our intentions are by in fact offending those students. It's such a fine line. When do we know if we've crossed it?