NYT Best Illustrated list for 2011 — The Horn Book

[...] Grandpa Green, written and illustrated by Lane Smith (Roaring Brook Press) [...]

Posted : Jul 25, 2012 02:23

Grandpa Green | An Education in Books Blog

[...] [...]

Posted : Mar 19, 2012 03:06

Reading Together: Mock Caldecott Awards

[...] source: white rabbit, hopper and wilson, water in the world, jane, ball for daisy, stars, grandpa green, swirl, blackout, jonathan, joe louis Tagged with: books • reading together  [...]

Posted : Jan 05, 2012 06:58

The 2011 Best Illustrated Children’s Books | David Maybury | Blog

[...] Saint Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Creatures – Katherine Paterson and Pamela DaltonGrandpa Green -Lane SmithIce – Arthur GeisertI Want My Hat Back – Jon KlassenMe … Jane – [...]

Posted : Nov 04, 2011 09:11

Sam Bloom

I read this one at story time (preschool, ranging in age from 3-5) today. It was a big hit, but it turned into a Where's Waldo of sorts. They definitely loved the artwork, though the meaning may have been lost on them. Not that this is a criticism of the book, mind you, but it was just something I noticed. I had the chance to give it a closer look and was really struck by the way that the green that is used throughout doesn't feel samey... there is enough variety to keep it fresh, despite the fact that Smith is really only using variations on green. To my eyes the best spread is the war/cannon... wow.

Posted : Sep 14, 2011 12:46

Ed Spicer

I don't think there is a single children's book published in which children see it exactly as the adults see it. The fact that children do not notice all the details adults notice really is meaningless. Is this a children's book? Absolutely! Is it an adult book as well? Absolutely! One of the many benefits of this book is that it allows children AND adults the opportunity to think and feel about the important folks in our lives. The fact that this book may lead to family conversations or conversations in school about our elders is frosting. This is a gem of a book and it will not surprise me at all to hear it announced early next year.

Posted : Sep 13, 2011 11:49

Robin Smith

By the way, I read Grandpa Green to my second graders today. They liked it okay, but not one noticed that the little boy was collecting things his grandfather had misplaced. They were a little over the top with the gatefold and loved the idea of the topiary in general. The were annoyed, I might add, that there is a big tree blocking the elephant on that gatefold and wondered what it was doing there. There is a little bird on that spread that they wondered about too and they felt that the dragon didn't belong in the life of the grandfather. Hmmm. It's early in the year, so I wonder what their questions and observations will be when they sharpen their visual skills!

Posted : Sep 13, 2011 02:59

Adam Sherland

Hello all, I am excited to join the conversation this year as we look at these incredible books, and can't wait to contrast the opinions and feedback on here with that of my knowledgeable and "out-spoken" third grade focus group. With that idea in mind, I love that Robin has brought up this little gem first, because while I love the illustrations, I at first wondered, as Robin suggested, if this is truly a book for children. The guidelines clearly state, "picture book for children" and I think that is an extremely important element to keep in mind. While I'm all for pushing the limits and recognizing exquisite art and storytelling, I really wonder why any group bestowing a children's literature award would recognize, and place at the forefront of the industry a book that the primary audience won't understand or benefit from. This was exactly the doubts that crossed my mind when when I first came across this book, and I was left wondering why Lane Smith had created another popular book that wasn't really, in my opinion, created for children. YET, as I reread it, two, three times, my opinion began to shift. I think the thing I hadn't at first appreciated was the way in which Smith uses the illustrations to really simplify and glorify the lives of an important generation of Americans. Furthermore, I think I realized that my definition of child was way too restrictive, as the criteria states that "children" covers the entire age range up to 14 (seeing as I say read the directions about 8 bazillion times a day to my students, you would have thought I would have gone through the rules a bit more carefully ). Now that I have this new found perspective I definitely feel this book merits staying on my list of possible contenders, and makes me excited to really look at it, and debate it further. Did anyone else have similar issues, am I over-thinking here, or missing something (both highly possible)?

Posted : Sep 12, 2011 09:18

Sam Bloom

I just looked at it for the first time, and I really like it - tomorrow I plan on "reading the pictures slowly," as you said, Robin. p.s. - RSS feed is working for me now!

Posted : Sep 12, 2011 07:47

Roger Sutton

Word has it that Caldecott committees LOVE when they "discover" things in the pictures. I blame the multitudes of cats wandering unremarked through picture books entirely on this rumor.

Posted : Sep 12, 2011 05:29

Lolly Robinson

Uh oh, Robin. We agree on this. Didn't Roger choose us so we would do battle with our vastly different opinions? This is the kind of book that rises to the top of the pile early: big-name picture book creator, huge adult appeal, lots of detail in the art to make us feel smart. What's interesting about actually BEING on the Caldecott Committee is that the weightiness of the task tends to make the members super-vigilant. Every book that's suggested or nominated is read and reread, allowing more subtle books get the kind of attention they might not get otherwise. I'd guess that your committee choosing Amos McGee and my committee choosing The Red Book were the result of this kind of scrutiny.

Posted : Sep 11, 2011 07:24