This is inspired by dotificus's entry today. I do feel strongly about this - don't we all? As a writer -- but even more a reader -- it bothers me to see the standards others like to place on a 'good' book. I've read some Newberry winners and honor books that I adore: A WITCH FROM BLACKBIRD POND, A WRINKLE IN TIME, A SWIFTLY TILTING PLANET, A RING OF ENDLESS LIGHT (yes, pretty much all L'Engle), SIGN OF THE BEAVER, UP A ROAD SLOWLY, THE BLUE SWORD -- just to name a few. I've read some that I liked, but won't necessarily ever read again. But most of the ones I've read I really didn't like at all. And these include many of the more current titles -- and the older titles (like before the '70s).
I guess this goes towards my pet peeve of agents -- and even other authors -- saying that we need to read all the current stuff to see what's out there. Yeah, that's true to an extent. But you know what? In my opinion, reading stuff we like, stuff that inspires us either because of the writing or the story (or hopefully both) -- this is much more important that reading books we just aren't going to like. But maybe this is why I'm not published yet ;)