Even MORE push back on The Bunker Diary's Carnegie win.

From the Independent:

But whether these particular books are the ones that make children love reading, and which we remember with love, is another matter. Children’s literature is a vast field, ranging as it does from astoundingly sophisticated picture books to Young Adult fiction such as Meg Rosoff’s How I Live Now. However, until very recently it was a genre that conformed to one rule: no matter what the protagonists went through, it must end happily.

*cough* Where the Red Fern GrowsTuck Everlasting, everything by Hans Christian Andersen *cough*

(Speaking of Andersen, it's funny: I find him mostly unbearable as an adult—precisely because of all of the unhappy endings—but as a KID, I read his stories over and over and over again. I knew they would make me cry, and I loved them for it.)

Also, WOW. The essay ends on a note suggesting that anyone who cheered for Kevin Brooks' win doesn't love children's books: "It is the latest in a trajectory for the Carnegie prize which nobody who loves children’s books can possibly­ applaud."

So that's nice.

Meanwhile, Frank Cottrell Boyce takes issue with the Carnegie being awarded to a YA novel:

I'm not making a comment on Brooks' book which I haven't read. He is well-regarded and the Carnegie should reward excellence. There is however a problem here. The Carnegie was instituted as a prize for children's fiction. Brooks is a YA writer. YA fiction is extremely lucrative for publishers. It sells well and is low risk as the vast majority of titles - including some brilliant books - are generic (vampires, sick kids, issues etc). Could not some of the publishers who have done so well out of the category stump up for a YA prize instead of predating on one of the few places where children's books aimed at children can still get some attention.


If this all has you chomping at the bit to read it, US readers have a bit of a wait: