I’m going to TRY (emphasis on try, since next week is spring break, and I’m on vacation), to comment on the BoB matches every Saturday during the rounds. We’ll see what happens.

A side note: in the midst of all this, Roger Sutton at Horn Book is critiquing the judges themselves. It’s quite a fascinating (and fun) supplement to this battle.

Round 1, Match 1: Bomb vs. Wonder (my pick: Bomb)
What I liked that Kenneth Oppel said about Wonder:

“Interestingly, no adults are given voices in the novel: not Mom or Dad or Auggie’s principal. But Palacio knows that in a kids’ world, grown ups can provide occassional back-up, but aren’t there on the front lines.”

“While Palacio doesn’t shy away from showing us the cruelty that kids are capable of, the mood of the novel is faultlessly kind-hearted, optimistic, almost utopian. My only general quibble is that Wonder’s characters are all perhaps a little too wise and noble, and exude so much emotion that I felt relatively little of my own.”

And what he said about Bomb:

“Best of all, Sheinkin’s book is filled with all those small details that are the lifeblood of the best stories — and the details that novelists kill for when creating fiction!”

” Fascinating subject matter, and swift vital writing make Bomb a joy to read.”

His decision? Bomb. Do I agree? Of course. Mostly because while I liked Wonder well enough, Bomb was edge-of-the-seat gripping for me. Spies! Science! And written in such a way that made both accessible and interesting. Even with it’s Issues and Good Message, Wonder just couldn’t hold a candle to that.

Round 1, Match 2: Code Name Verity vs. Titanic (my pick: Code Name Verity)
I couldn’t find a really stand-out quote by Margarita Engle about Code Name Verity,  but she did say this:

“By contrast, Code Name Verity does not make an organized impression. The rambling style is one more commonly found in adult novels than those meant for young people.  It is a first person story, but the identity of the narrator keeps changing, as she writes a long, baffling confession (or accusation, or diversionary puzzle, or secret code—we’re never sure which).”

But, for me, her description of Titanic really made me want to read it (I haven’t yet, even though it’s on my TBR pile):

“Hopkinson writes like a gentle encyclopedia, presenting so much information in such an incredibly organized fashion that at times it is actually possible to forget that there will not be a hopeful ending for most of the endearing real-life characters who are described, quoted, or portrayed through vignettes of specific moments:  the arrival on deck, reading a book at bedtime, or bailing icy water out of an overcrowded lifeboat.  My favorite aspect of this book is the emotional impact of all the combined bits and pieces.”

Her decision? Code Name Verity. Do I agree? Of course. If you haven’t read this one yet, you ought to.

Round 1, Match 3: Endangered vs. Three Times Lucky (my pick: Three Times Lucky)
What Kathi Appelt said about Endangered:

“It doesn’t happen very often, but once in a while, I enter a book on page one, and when I exit that book, I feel like I’ve come to see something about the world that I didn’t know, or I didn’t think I knew.  It feels like I’ve trued something that needed truing.  Endangered was one of those books. “

And the reason I adore Three Times Lucky (I wish I could get more people to read this book!):

“When I read the lines out loud in Mo’s story, my heart sang.  I loved the cadences, the idiomatic speech, the lyricism embedded throughout this story.  It was like sitting at dinner with my great aunts.”

Her choice? Endangered. Do I agree? I don’t know. While I adore Three Times, I’d probably be able to tell better if I’d read the winner first. Which is something I’m going to do before round 2.

Round 1, Match 4: The Fault in Our Stars vs. Temple Grandin (my pick: TFIOS)
What Deb Caletti had to say about Temple Grandin:

 Lush full-page images of up-close cowhide bookend the story, bringing the animals themselves right to the reader in a way that’s smart and downright cow-cool. You want to stroke the pages.
 

And about TFIOS:

“Yeah, I liked the snap-crack dialogue, sure, but it wasn’t even that. What worked for me as a writer, but even more as a reader, were the truths of the small moments.”

Her pick? TFIOS. Do I agree? Of course. Though I also agree with Jonathan’s assessment: “THE FAULT IN OUR STARS has the ability to make a deep run in this tournament, but at some point I hope that our judges will weigh in on the success of Van Houten’s reappearance at the end of the novel—as that point seemed to dominate the conversation on the Printz blog.” It’ll be interesting to see how it fares throughout the tournament.

On to the second half of round 1!