Jump to content

Talk:Carnegie Medal (literary award)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

I replaced the shortlist below with the winner only.

Current shortlist (books published in 2003)

--mervyn 13:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Runners up including shortlists are now part of the program for articles on book awards. That section does need some help here, see below. --P64 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Since there is more than one Carnegie Medal award, I'm changing this to "Carnegie Medal in Literature" and initiating a disambiguation page.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winners of multiple awards

[edit]

This new section of the article includes {{anchor|repeat}}, which I have already used in the preface. That is short for "Repeat winners", a section heading in some articles on awards.

The list of six authors with two Medals is nearly reliable because the source is inspection of our table sorted by author.

Six books have won both Guardian and Carnegie --I have dared to say, although the only source is my inspection of the two Winners lists. That is errorprone, so needs another editor or two. Please confirm or correct. --P64 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction award in practice?

[edit]

As i leave the article after major revision in the last few days, a one-line quotation is isolated.

"All categories of books for children and young people are eligible."

The article will benefit from some observation, and preferably some discussion, about which books do win.

In more than twenty years there was no winner of Carnegie and Nestle Smarties. The eldest of three Nestle reader categories is 9 to 11. (Harry Potter won that when he was 11, 12, and 13 years old.) The coincidence suggest to me that books truly for readers age 9 to 11 are too childish for the Carnegie Medal in practice.

CILIP specifies no considerations except those re plot, characterisation, and style (jointly mentioned in the article). P and C pertain only to fiction and four of six S considerations pertain only to fiction, I suppose. That leaves two of more than a dozen official considerations which might pertain to nonfiction: Is the style or styles appropriate to the subject and theme? Where factual information is presented, is this accurate and clear? This suggest to me that nonfiction cannot win in practice.

This is original research. Discussion in the article will require references. There is scope for careful observations based on original research, however. Most or even all Medalists may be identified as novels in our articles, or classified as fiction by the British Library (or other authority). Many of the books are in print and many publishers now recommend reader age ranges, so a census with worthwhile coverage may be feasible.

My observation about Nestle Smarties is a start. (If skim correctly, one Carnegie Medalist ranked third for Nestle age 9-11.) Any other UK award to pre-school and elementary books may be usefully compared with the Medal. --P64 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the press release "Shortlist for the 2012 CILIP Carnegie Medal announced" |ref name=short2012/|,
* "... bucking the trend of recent shortlists which have majored on teenage and young adult fiction. ... the shortlisted novels take young readers ..."
This confirms to me, but does not prove, that this may be a fiction award in practice, or close enough that some insiders think of it as such. --P64 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Radium Woman (1939) is a biography of M. Curie; we call it the first non-fiction to win the Carnegie Medal.
Presumable non-fiction was the first Highly Commended book we list, identified when no 1966 Medal was awarded: The Bayeux Tapestry: ....
CILIP's Greenaway Medal for illustration has been dominated by fiction in recent decades. Indeed, the press release for 2001 Greenaway Medal Pirate Diary, illus. Chris Riddell, called it the first "information book" Medalist in 27 years. And that is historical fiction, called "fictionalised" in the press release. --P64 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publication year

[edit]

As i leave the article after major revision in the last few days, there are two allusions to the "school year" in relation to the current publication year September to August. According to a previous editor, students at many schools participate in some sense, between Nominations and Shortlist (4 Nov to 27 Mar this year). Those dates too suggest catering to the school year.

Whatever the rationale, I wonder how long the Sep to Aug publication year has been in effect. That is such a misfit for the calendar year (which i take to be the default reference of these expressions) that simple mention of the "preceding year" or the "year following publication" is dangerous. Why don't CILIP and this article routinely provide publication dates? Are there very few books published (officially released?) Sep to Dec?

I will not add publication date to the table. Complete notice of the facts may not be worth the column space. But the article will benefit from some observations in the text or footnotes. --P64 (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shortlists

[edit]
third of three new sections 2012-05-08, after second draft of major revision

At the top and at 2005 i have marked this section {{incomplete list}} and {{citation needed}}. We need a source for shortlists prior to 2009. (From a great distance, i suppose that there is a print source complete for 1936 to some recent year.) If 1993 was the first public shortlist, we should explain that --both in the lead and at 1993 in the list, I think.

Although winners are listed above, they may deserve some highlight in the shortlists.

The shortlists make one long footnote, in effect. It may be appropriate to provide more information. For example, any nonfiction books might be marked "— nonfiction". The Amber Spyglass might be marked "(His Dark Materials, Book 3)". --P64 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the website link for the Shortlist commendations [1]-—however, the librarian who put together the short list in question did not cite their sources. Should we assume that this is a legitimate primary source?Alarumclock (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231442/http:/web.ccsu.edu/library/nadeau/award%20books/CarnegieMedal.htm#Carnegie%20Medal

Oldest and most prestigious

[edit]

CILIP calls this "the UK's oldest and most prestigious book award for children's writing". It would. I have added precisely that, as a quotation, to the lead par immediately following identification of CILIP as the conferring body. So we have a plain fact as stated and the context is appropriate. Should we say it?

Is it correct? Privately I wondered about that a month ago, working on Guardian Award, where our lead section concludes, "It may be compared with the American Newbery Medal.{{clarification needed}}" (my tag). It may be compared, of course. What happens if the Guardian and Carnegie are both compared with the Newbery which is clearly the oldest and most prestigious in the U.S.?

As the two articles stand, the Carnegie Medal must appear more important and the Guardian Award less important, because the former has a real article and the latter really is a WP:STANDALONE list of winners and finalists, and still {{unreferenced}} --although both are literally Start-grade articles as I write.

Is anyone able to state or cite a reliable judgment? --P64 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report: Current ratings for WP:Children's literature.

--P64 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the UK's most prestigious award for children's literature, the Carnegie medal" --from The Guardian's own coverage of the 2012 Carnegie shortlist. ("Carnegie shortlist includes Andy Mulligan's controversial Trash: ...". Alison Flood. guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 March 2012.) --P64 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more ALA Carnegie Medals

[edit]

This year the American Library Association inaugurates two Andrew Carnegie Medals (sigh) "to recognize the best fiction and nonfiction books for adult readers published in the U.S. the previous year."[1] The occasion is the centennial of Carnegie Corporation of New York, the sponsor.

Those two make three year's best ALA awards named for Andrew Carnegie, those two for best adult books and the (Andrew) Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Children's Video. --P64 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both are Andrew Carnegie Medals. One of the tokens is literally "The Andrew Carnegie Medal" in high relief.[2] For the American Library Association "Carnegie Medal" is a nickname, useful in forming URLs and menu listings but the prose makes clear that the name begins with A.
Our article Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Children's Video should be moved (as should Belpré Medal for the Pura Belpré Award, and perhaps others) and its infobox title revised at least to Andrew Carnegie Medal.
--P64 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

[edit]

During the first three decades (28 medals thru 1965) every one of the winning works was illustrated. Source: Marcus Crouch, ed., Chosen for Children (second ed., covering those 30 years) lists an illustrator or mentions the author's illustrations for every one of the books. We have book articles on 24 of the winning works, all of which identify their illustrators. Six authors illustrated or co-illustrated their books, most recently 1953, Edward Osmond, A Valley Grows Up. During the fourth and fifth decades (19 medals 1966-85) eight works were illustrated, none by their authors. Since then (27 medals) only three works have been illustrated, namely 1998, 2010, and 2012. Sources: WorldCat library records for first editions. And our book articles: we have a complete set with infobox OCLC links to those records.

Summary count of winning works with illustrations

1936-65: 28 of 28 (six illus. by the writer)
1966-85: 8 of 19 (none " ")
1986-12: 3 of 26 (none " ")
In sum: 39 of 73 medal-winning books illustrated (six self-illustrated)

--P64 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is simply a case of a change in publishers' conventions. At one time virtually all children's books were illustrated, at least in their hardback versions. Nowadays it is usually only books for younger children that are illustrated, and it is mostly books for older children that win the medal.
I'm inclined to think that A Valley Grows Up would have won the Kate Greenaway Medal instead if it had been established that year, but that other books won on the strength of their text, not the illustrations. Robina Fox (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

This article was recently changed from "Carnegie Medal in Literature" to "Carnegie Medal (literary award)". Prior to that, I had made about 300 piping changes away from the disamb page "Carnegie Medal". Now these piping changes are going to the old article name, so I recommend moving the article back to "Carnegie Medal in Literature" to preserve the corrected piping. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, this is a better name, since the medal is actually just called the Carnegie Medal. Only in Wikipedia has "in Literature" been tacked onto it. The changes you made will still arrive here, through redirection. However, I will be changing them again where the form "Carnegie Medal in Literature" appears in articles, as it is incorrect. Robina Fox (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carnegie Medal (literary award). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carnegie Medal (literary award). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'Latest rendition' section

[edit]

I propose that we remove the 'Latest rendition' section. It's superfluous in my opinion, since the majority of the information is already contained within the article, and only serves to bulk out an already rather bulky article. Other articles on literary awards (eg. Booker Prize, Man Booker International Prize, British Book Awards, Women's Prize for Fiction) don't have a comparable section. Supervegan (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add a 'Controversies' section?

[edit]

Planning to add a 'Controversies' section or something similar, as there have been several in recent years. Eg. The Bunker Diary, Trash, and some of the other novels which won or have been nominated have been criticised for graphic content, bleakness, swearing, etc.

Also #CarnegieSoWhite on Twitter after a lack of BAME authors longlisted, which prompted a diversity review (see: [3]) Supervegan (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carnegie_Medal_(literary_award)&oldid=1206533737"