It's a Perfectly Cromulent Word

Today is Newbery Tuesday. Those of you who are paying attention will note that we've had a Movie Tuesday and a Hot Men of Children's Literature Tuesday in the past. Basically, Tuesday is the day I like to dub different things just for the heckuvit.

Where was I? Oh right. Today I'm putting up a ton o' info (2 posts) regarding Newbery schtoof. Recently Big A little a was kind enough to link to a piece entitled 2007 Newbery winners follow familiar themes. Uh-oh, says me. The article comes via one Mr. David Ross, a man with many literary credentials to his name and not a kidlit one amongst them. So we are cautiously optimistic in our reading of his piece. Interestingly enough, in the article Mr. Ross only discusses two of the four Newbery wins; The Higher Power of Lucky and Penny From Heaven. Interesting choices.

Then we get to this charming turn of phrase:

The Newbery selection committee is instructed not to look to the past, not to look to the accomplishments of authors, and not to judge current fiction by past benchmarks. That said, the 2007 committee has made a solid but safe selection, one that turns away from the bold choices of past years.

????

Bold choices? I appreciate the term "solid". I waver on the word "safe" (and many an anti-scrotumite would back me up on this). I then fall down slam-bang onto my face when I read the word "bold". Bold? Kira-Kira and Criss Cross were bold? Honestly, I liked Criss Cross more than many a person I've discussed it with, but what was bold about the book? Or is he referring to the Newbery Honors like The Voice That Challenged a Nation, Show Way, and Princess Academy? I don't mind when people outside the field discuss Newbery winners, but I would certainly appreciate some clarification when using such expansive terms. Buddy.