Assessing Selection Tools

Part I: As I set out to review and examine the strengths and styles of six selection tools-- Booklist, Publisher’s Weekly, School Library Journal, The Horn Book Magazine, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, and Kirkus Reviews- my initial thought was to read each resource’s review of the same picture book. I was able to do this with five of the six publications, albeit in two different groups: the first group, comprised of Booklist, Publisher’s Weekly, and School Library Journal, reviewing The Very Fairy Princess Follows Her Heart; and The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and Kirkus Review reviewing Chu’s Day. The Horn Book Magazine was also evaluated.

Looking at three reviews of the same book gives me, and other readers, a clearer idea on the tone and description in each publication. Each of the reviews in Booklist, Publisher’s Weekly, and School Library Journal deal with the major obstacle of the title Fairy Princess- a hurried mix-up that leaves her without her handmade Valentines’ cards on Valentine’s Day at school, but all three have a different take. According to Publisher’s Weekly (2012), this is “a disappointment… that turns into an improvisational opportunity.” The exact same scenario in Booklist (2012) has the Fairy Princess believing “her day is ruined.” However, Marel (2012) in School Library Journal describes the same plot point in accessible- and empathetic- language: “What could be a huge disaster turns into a unique opportunity for Gerry to show her friends just how much they mean to her by acting out her valentines for them, telling them why they are special. It turns out to be a great day for everyone. The authors weave in everyday issues that children face…” School Library Journal was also the only review to cite the title as part of an ongoing series, as well as to describe how it could be used in a storytime setting: “This engaging story is short enough for group sharing and has a solid but subtle message.” This is an important differentiator from the other two reviews- recognizing the role of the children’s services provider in reading/sharing the title. The depiction of the illustrations in all three follows a similar pattern: Booklist describes the art as “wispy and energetic”; Publisher’s Weekly describes the “carefree color swirls and accents with precise pencil lines”; and School Library Journal describes the ink-and-pencil illustrations as “bright, sparkly, and filled with emotion,” fitting the personality of our heroine.

In stark contrast to the accessible and easily read narratives of the previous three publications, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books appears to pride itself in describing the books themselves, especially the technical nature of the illustrations. For example, Hulick (2013) reviews include the following: “the lush graphite, colored pencil, and watercolor illustrations are loaded with detail,” and “jam-packed with intricate geometric patterns and mandalas, sometimes leading to compositions that are eye-achingly busy. An attractive color palette of muted blues, turquoises, creams, and golds is enlivened by pops of fuschia and bright white.”   While I may be alone in this opinion, reading The Bulletin’s reviews feels like work—similar to listening to someone who drops big words into a discussion to prove they have a large vocabulary. For example, Stevenson’s (2013) review of Neil Gaiman’s Chu’s Day contains the phrases “splendid climax… humorous fillip… intricately fantastical.” I can’t image reading review after review like this as a collection development librarian. I feel as while the reviews may be limited by word count they are paid by the syllable.

That’s not to say the Kirkus Reviews (2012) review of Gaiman’s Chu’s Day isn’t without it’s fanciful words, but the format of the review gives the reviewer more room to play—with an initial sentence giving away the plot, and a concluding sentence bookending the majority of the review, including the book’s shortcomings: “A modest yet richly colorful day in the life of a small panda who may or may not sneeze, which may or may not be calamitous… Weigh great art and clever story against the exploitation of the old, unfortunate cliché that Asian names sound funny.” The advantage of the Kirkus Reviews, as a reader of the review, is that reading only these bookending sentences gives us a decent idea what the book entails—the same could not be said for The Bulletin’s review.

The remaining tool- The Horn Book Magazine- did not review either title, and so was assessed individually. The major advantage of The Horn Book Magazine is the inclusion of visuals- spreads from inside the book, rather than the canned and commercialized cover art. Browsing through the January 2012 issue of The Horn Book Magazine, the review text and the selected imagery reinforce each other, making the reader more aware of what’s being described. For example, in Horning’s (2012) review of 10 Hungry Rabbits, the editors select an image clearly demonstrating the narrative- “Each ingredient (including, interestingly, blueberries) is prominently featured in a countable, realistic-style portrait that takes up two-thirds of each page and is accompanied by the corresponding color-coded number, as both an Arabic numeral and written out in Roman script. Beneath the main illustration is a line of text describing the rabbit’s action.” Adjacent to the text is an image showing just this for the reader!

While I appreciated the utility of the Kirkus Reviews’ book ending strategy, I felt that the closest style of review to my own is that of School Library Journal. The language was digestible, the information was applicable in a library setting, it considered the primary target audience, the children, not the reviewer, and conveyed a sense of emotion tied in with the story while relating the plot.

With these points in mind, I deployed a strategy that accounted for the primary target audience- my two young children. I read each title three times, as suggested in Peck (2009), waited approximately 24 hours, and then read all books with my children. I was surprised that my initial reaction to these books, and how I thought they would react, was fairly accurate to how both children, especially my four year old daughter, reacted and interacted with each book. My hope and intent is to continue this practice of reading each title, allowing myself time to reflect, and then reading them with my children, to give a well-rounded perspective on each picture book I review this semester!

Chu's Day. (2012). Kirkus Reviews, 80(22), 130.

Horning, K. T. (2012). 10 Hungry Rabbits: Counting & Color Concepts. Horn Book Magazine, 88(1), 74-75.

Hulick, J.(2013). Ganesha's Sweet Tooth (review). Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books 66(5), 256. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hulick, J.(2013). Puss in Boots (review). Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books 66(5), 257. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Leeper, A. (2013). The Very Fairy Princess Follows Her Heart. Booklist, 109(9), 124.

Marel, L. (2013). The Very Fairy Princess Follows Her Heart. School Library Journal, 59(1), 74-75.

Stevenson, D.(2013). Chu's Day (review). Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books 66(5), 244-245. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

The Very Fairy Princess Follows Her Heart. (2012). Publishers Weekly, 259(50), 60.