In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

28 Anne Scott MacLeod, A Moral Tale: Children' s Fiction and American Culture , 1820-1860 (Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books, 1975), p. 31. Mark Irwin West American Culture Program Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 The Librarian, The Reviewer, The Public, and The Child Kathy Piehl Anyone who glances at journals containing reviews of children's books might decide that there are two opposing groups with definite convictions about how books should be judged. The two sides might be characterized as those who emphasize the practical and promote books that will be popular, no matter what their quality, and those who insist on high literary standards, even if the books they recommend are never checked out by anyone. This gulf is illustrated by the following excerpts from a letter to School Library Journal : I am continually amused by the back-and-forth banter between your reviewers and teachers and authors. It seems that the majority of these arguments is based on the difference between what is of literary value vs. what will be read by children. Being a children's librarian in a public library — and I emphasize public — I feel adamant about being able to provide what all ages and interests need and want, not what I consider "a good piece of fiction." ... Our patrons would be severely disappointed if we bought only those books your reviewers recommend. — Who are you to decide what children should read? After all, we must serve and satisfy the public, not the elite. Obviously the two librarians who wrote the letter have their criteria for choosing books firmly in mind, but most reviewers can't deal only with one aspect of the materials they evaluate. The question, "Who are you to decide what children should read?" is one that haunts all conscientious reviewers. They realize that people who read book reviews demand a great deal of information in each review. A survey of articles in Booklist, Top of the News, Wilson Library Bulletin, and other journals indicates that a book review must do much to 132 satisfy its readers. Based on the requirements of 26 different editors, authors, librarians, reviewers, and others interested in children's books, we arrive at the following profile of a good book review. (Some of these items were mentioned by only one person while other criteria were noted by several.) A good book review should be objective, intelligent, and based on more than one reading. A good book review should make a clear statement of recommendation or non-recommendation, demonstrate knowledge of children's books from past years, evaluate the book's literary quality, provide tips on how to "sell" the book to readers, and discuss the book's total effectiveness. A good book review should include information about the book's content; special features; size and shape; thickness of paper; reading and interest levels; type; visual qualities; tone; portrayal of sexual, racial, and age groups; inclusion of controversial language or depictions of sex and violence; and cover illustration. A good book review should note film or TV tie-ins, relevance, and audience appeal. A good book review should include information about other people such as guidance counselors who should be alerted about the book; library programming possibilities; the book's scope, mentioning omissions and inclusions; comparisons with other books by the same author; and comparisons of similar books by other authors. A good book review should not be sarcastic or unkind. The impossibility of pleasing everyone becomes even more apparent when we remember that most book reviews are less than 200 words long. Only the New York Times Book Review has more, with 305 words average. The Horn Book Magazine averages 178, School Library Journal 135, Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books 127, and Booklist 113. Who are the people that undertake the seemingly impossible task of reviewing children's books? They seem to belong to three main groups. The first category is authors, favored by George Woods, Editor for Children's Books of the New York Times Book Review. They are, he insists, "most suitable as reviewers because they are devoted to the field, are part of it, have made contributions, know the...

pdf

Share