How is this version
different from its predecessors? Well, for starters, I’ve adopted some new terminology. And to me, it’s
an important change.

I’m calling what we
often think of traditional nonfiction writing “direct nonfiction.” It’s
straightforward and full of facts. Done badly, it can be dry and boring. But done
well, it helps us understand the world and its possibilities and our place in
it. I’m coming to think of it as nonfiction for left-brain thinkers (though I
acknowledge that’s an oversimplification).

In the opposite corner,
we have narrative nonfiction. My personal feeling is that, in general, it
appeals more strongly to right-brain thinkers. This includes most librarians
and elementary teachers and kidlit advocates, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s
one reason it is the current darling of awards committees.

I see many people in
the kidlit community saying things like, “narrative nonfiction is wonderful
because kids respond to story. They want to feel an emotional connection to a
central figure in a narrative.”

What I say in response
is that SOME kids respond to story. They want to feel an emotional connection
to a central figure in a narrative. Other kids . . .well, not so much. In any
case, it’s low on their list of priorities.

I have still included
March Aronson and Jonathan Hunt’s notion of “gateway nonfiction” on my tree,
but I’m feeling less confident about how it fits into the scheme of things.

I have to admit that
after reading Steve Sheinkin’s wonderful, awesome, amazing BOMB, I toyed with
the idea of adding a category called “nonfiction thriller,” but I wasn’t sure about
creating a limb on the tree for just one book. IMHO, Sheinkin’s masterpiece is
a game changer—something to attract those kids who will grow up to love Michael
Crichton or Tom Clancy.

I continue to include open branches and twigs because I expect to make additional changes in the future as nonficiton for kids continues to evolve.

So what do you think of this new version? What else should we be thinking about?