Scholastic -- hc
New York -- ©2006 -- 134pp
ISBN:1416901949 (isbn13: 9781416901945)
illustrated by Matt Phelan
2007 Newbery Award winner
Lucky, age 10, lives in tiny Hard Pan, California (population 43), with her dog and the young French woman who is her guardian. With a personality that may remind some readers of Ramona Quimby, Lucky, who is totally contemporary, teeters between bravado--gathering insect specimens, scaring away snakes from the laundry--and fear that her guardian will leave her to return to France. Looking for solace, Lucky eavesdrops on the various 12-step meetings held in Hard Pan (of which there are plenty), hoping to suss out a "higher power" that will see her through her difficulties. Her best friend, Lincoln, is a taciturn boy with a fixation for tying knots; another acquaintance, Miles, seems a tiresome pest until Lucky discovers a secret about his mother.[from Booklist]
#####
I've made it a habit to read the Newbery Medal winning books, and often I read the runners-up as well. What I've found is that lately I have been less than impressed with the winning titles. This particular winner typifies my dislike for the winning choices.
What we have in this book is all the didactic qualities that the ALA seems to like, mixed in with a parent-less youth, who happens to be bright enough to overcome her own situation. It's the same qualities that we found in KIRA-KIRA, CRISPIN, A SINGLE SHARD, BUD NOT BUDDY, HOLES, and so on. What we don't have is a strong story. Even the School Library Journal described the book in their review as a "character-driven novel."
Characters can be wonderful and fun, and hold a reader's interest, but still a novel needs a story. Patron's book just doesn't have enough story to keep me interested (and I felt that the characters were odd or unusual to drive a novel, not because they needed to be).
The writing is unusually flat for an award-winning book. It seems almost a crime to put this book on the same shelf as Konigsberg's or Lowry's or Spinelli's.
This feels like a book that was written to get ALA Newbery interest, and not a book written to catch the interest of a young reader.
Much has been written about the book's rather casual use and descriptions for the word "scrotum." Patron and the ALA and past Newbery Honor winners can defend this all the want, and I most certainly would defend the author's right to write a book in any way she so chooses. However, I would also defend the right of readers to shout and howl against this word choice.
Personally, I would not (and won't) advocate that my children read this book. I know that it will make them uneasy, and quite rankly, there's just not enough in the book to make it worthwhile to have to read some 'shocking' word choices. Is 'scrotum' an appropriate word for young readers? I don't think so. Should a book, aimed at pre-teen readers also have young characters speak clinically about a penis or vagina? No, and I don't know why there would be any difference.
That the ALA saw fit to award this book the medal is absolutely shocking and only serves to lessen the honor of the award itself.
