Newbery Books discussion

hmm. I just finished it so even though it's an hour early I decided to post first :-)

First of all the things I liked about it:

- The urban setting of NYC. I think I've read a lot of books set in NYC but I felt like I was exploring the city and getting lost and finding my way back home with him. Kinda cool.

- The relationship between him and his dad and how it evolved in the end.

- I liked Tom as well. A great character to have compassion for - and he was an avenue for us to see the dad through a different viewpoint.

- I liked it being from a boys point of view. To me it seemed realistic - getting in fights with his best friend and then the next day it's like it didn't happen. Then not talking to him again and it really doesn't bother him cuz he's a guy. I wish I could get a guys opinion to see what he thinks (if it is like how a teenage boy thinks). It's hard to tell when a woman is writing from a boy's point of view.

- I liked how he described city kids when they got out into the country or when they were in nature for the first time (or had a salamander for the first time).

- The way the cat played into the book and relationships with people around him. Kate, his dad, Tom, his girl at the end -- all kind of were linked to his cat in their own way.

Things I didn't like:
- The title.

- The old-fashioned language was sometimes either hard to figure out even with context or just cheesy.

From other reviews I've read it seems like other literature for boys at this time was all kind of the "hardy boys" type. So I think this was kind of groundbreaking to have an inner-city kid being the narrator. Other than that I can't really see why it's a Newbery. I mean, it is a coming-of-age story. And it's a good story. Just not a wow . . .

I think that one of the reasons why I like this book is because my parents were teens in the fifties so I grew up listening to the music of the 50's and watching "Leave it to Beaver" reruns.

I also like this book because I like cats and it is kind of fun to read about "Kate the Crazy Cat Lady".

I also like it for all of the reasons that Kristine mentioned.

However, I don't feel that this book will withstand the test of time. I really don't think that there are very many kids of the 21st Century who are interested in reading this book with all of it's old fashioned slang. For that reason I don't feel it deserves the Newbery Medal.

(Hi! I'm new here, and like several of you, just started on a quest to read all the Newberys--I only have 18 right now, I was surprised to discover--though I probably won't follow the schedule.)

I just read this book a couple of months ago--I never thought it would interest me because I don't usually care for books about animals (I didn't know it wasn't really an ANIMAL book). I'm in my twenties, and I really enjoyed it, and thought it stood the test of time well--though I read it more as historical fiction. The themes are timeless, and I think the writing is great. I tend to dislike so-called "modern" slang in kids' books, too, so if I'd read this book when it was written I probably would have been unhappy with that--but as "historical fiction", I don't find it jarring.

This book has gone on my short list of "favorite Newberys".

Thanks to KT for setting this book in Newbury history for us. I enjoy learning about that. I liked the book okay, nothing earthshaking, pretty innocent, a bit dated. But I thought it was about good people trying to do the right thing which is always refreshing. I'm glad the boy gains more appreciation for his father. I thought the Tom character was interesting and I liked Kate the cat lady. I also liked the relationship that is developing between Dave and Mary in a "real people" sort of way. I don't know if a real teenage boy would be perceptive enough to steer clear of shallow flirtation in favor of friendship, but some might. Dave's parents and Mary's mother were rather stereotypical, but perhaps we all fit into categories on the surface. The cat was realistic. :) I also wonder about accuracy when women write from a male perspective and vice-versa, but I can think of several successful examples. I'd rate this book a low 3.

I have to admit that I've read this is the past but did not re-read it last month like I had planned. I have nothing really new to say, just that I agree with what was said about this book being something that was unprecedented in juvenile fiction for boys at the time. I can see why it won the award at the time but I can also see where it has not stood the test of time but I still think it is a classic in kids literature in many ways. With that said, if I'd been around when this book won the award I probably would have been disappointed and been one of those people criticizing the Newbery Committee. It is all about time and perspective I guess. Does that mean I might like The Higher Power of Lucky or Feathers in 30 years? :-)

I also want to thank KT for giving us a bit of Newbery history. I always enjoy learning new things. I haven't read any other books by this author, I'm interested in reading "Berries Goodman", I'll see if I can find it at the library.

I read the book "Rascal" as a kid and absolutely loved it! I gave it 5 stars. I'm not familiar with "The Loner" though, another one to look for next time I go to the library.

I also enjoyed KT's comments. Thank you. This book is not one of my favorite Newberys, and I agree that it is not one of the most memorable. Relationships are interesting though and the book is filled with about every kind of relationship there is. Friends, relatives, acquaintances, couples, pets... I think that makes the book more enduring as everyone can relate in some way, father to son, human to pet, friend to friend, neighbor to neighbor, boy to girl. I think the setting in NY was well done along with the character development. All in all, I give it 3 1/2 stars on a scale of 1-5.

Hi, KT, I meant a 3 on the Goodreads scale of 1-5.
--Dawn

I know I am really late to comment on this book. I was on vacation at the time we discussed it, but I still wanted to chime in and give my opinion. I really liked this book. I am a little unsure what is meant by it being "dated" I mean I feel it is a book that is set in the 50's. I have read many books that have been written now days but the book was set in WWII or in the 50's or something and I don't feel the book was "dated". I am curious to know what is meant by being dated.

I agree that one of the reasons I liked it so much is because it did explore so many relationships. I don't think of this book as a Young Adult book but more of a 4th or 5th grade book and I think 9 or 10 year olds today would enjoy reading this book, or having this book read to them in class.

It may not be one of the best books on the Newbury list, but I don't think it is the worst either. Kids and teachers now days may not pick it up because the list of Newbury winners has gotten so big that there isn't enough time in a school year to read everything.

I kept expecting something bad to happen in the book. Something like getting lost in New York or Tom being a bad guy. I was still pleasantly surprised with how much I liked the book. It left me with a good feeling and didn't get too deep that a 9 or 10 year old wouldn't enjoy it. All in all, I give this a high 3 or low 4 on the goodreads 5 star scale.

Hi, Brandy! I'm glad you enjoyed this book because I remember you didn't really like some of the others.

Your question about what "dated" really refers to is a good one. I've actually been debating this in a couple of different places lately. Usually books that are "historical fiction" avoid being dated because they're written from a distance of twenty or more years. Books that are set at the time they are written can seem dated because they're written as if that's the way the world is--but it isn't anymore to us later readers. Readers might have trouble relating to the book, or even understanding it. It's Like This, Cat was very modern at the time it was written, and it seems like many of the people here found it to be too dated; like you, I just thought of it as a book set in a different time; I thought it was effective as "historical fiction" even though it wasn't written that way. To me, it is an interesting glimpse into another time.

As a counterexample, I did recently comment that another Newbery was truly "dated": Summer of the Swans. That book has a character who is developmentally disabled, and I found the way the character was treated and talked about was just too different from how the world is now, yet the novel is not clearly set in a particular time, so it couldn't be classified as "historical fiction". It was probably revolutionary at the time, but I didn't think this book had much of value for today's readers (though many people disagree with that, I see from other reviews, and I'm glad others found value).

I thought this book was interesting and engaging, but not stellar. Perhaps what I liked best about it was its 'dated' feel. It was clearly of its time. Arguments with dad, a few first tentative dates...how sweet. Pre-teen romance books cover those themes now, not Newberys. (I enhanced the 'vintage' experience by picking up a used copy from the time, with a great cover and the smell of an old, old paperback.)