From the Telegraph:
But I don’t feel the same about The Bunker Diary, which has all the hallmarks of an issue-led discussion piece rather than a literary novel, and seems to have won on shock value rather than merit. As Brooks revealed in his acceptance speech, he fought for 10 years to get this novel into print, and was repeatedly told that it wouldn’t work for children unless he changed the plot to allow for the possibility of hope. He won the day and, as it stands, his novel is a uniquely sickening read.
ETA: From a related piece at the Guardian:
Judges, she said, were not considering "shock value" when selecting their winner. "The CILIP Carnegie judging process is transparent and based entirely on the criteria. At no point do the judges consider 'shock value'. We pride ourselves on basing all judgments on literary quality alone – as can be seen from the outstandingly well-written winner of the 2014 award," said Thompson, adding that the book is "full of hope", and contains "many instances of humanity, love, community, support and forgiveness. Incredibly well-crafted, it is indeed a master storyteller who can leave the reader with such a feeling of hope even when the ending is not a traditionally happy one."
Previously: The 2014 Carnegie Medal has been awarded.
Previously: A roundup of WSJ #YAsaves responses.
Previously: And the WSJ #YAsaves uproar continues.