I would like to see a PICTURE book win for the Caldecott, rather than a graphic novel, a lengthy non-fiction tome or the sort of meaningful-to-adults-meaningless-to-kids sort of nonfiction that too often seems to get the nod. After all, are these awards for books that kids read or for books published as kids books that ADULTS read?

What is a picture book anymore? The definition has changed with Hugo Cabret (a book that children absolutely adore while the adults get all wary around it). I think the Caldecott winners are often far more kid-friendly than their Newbery equivalents, but that is not to say that this is an award that is meant to rely on popularity alone. If that were the case then we'd be seeing Walter the Farting Dog books getting the awards year after year. What I like about the Caldecotts now is that we've expanded the definition of an "illustrated book" so that it can mean a graphic novel or a non-fiction title that, yes, will be used more for reports than reading for pleasure. In answer to your question, these are awards for kids to read, but the awards have to take into account artistic skill and integrity over simple popularity.

I think that if the Caldecott goes to a more "adult" title there will be a huge uproar. When we do our Newbery unit at school, the students are often surprised by the range of readership (some books clearly for a younger reader, others for a far older reader). Many assume the Caldecott is for a picture book, eg, a book for a K-4 student. Hugo Cabret started to push that envelope out... where do we think it will end?

Oh, puh-LEEZE, Elizabeth! I'm not talking about "Fancy Nancy" or "Walter the Farting Dog", I'm talking about all those really good picture books that DON'T end up on the Times best seller list, but that librarians cherish and WANT their patrons to discover.Look at the Honor books on the list--you're going to tell me that they weren't worth the award? And look at all the innovative, creative illustrators who've been passed over year after year for the fad of the year, or for a book that's "socially relevant", not something that will delight kids for generations!

Sorry, but I've been in this biz for 24 years (the first 4 at NYPL, BTW) and that "artistic skill and integrity" is just lofty jargon. I'd ask, does the book have something that will reach out across generations? Will it be read and re-read? Does it have pictures that will hold their delight and immediacy even if art techniques advance and books change?

There are Caldecott books that have not worn well. But there are others that were written 40 or 50 years ago that are still read because they have something so profound to say to children that time doesn't muddy the message, and the old fashioned art doesn't matter.

And sorry, I don't think "Hugo Cabret" is a book for the ages...