There are publishers out there with either no taste or no intelligence, and I'm not sure which

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

I've just read an online article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16721095/site/newsweek/
all about how for the 75th anniversary of the Little House books they're releasing new versions illustrated with photographs of models as the characters, and I am feeling absolutely murderous.

A quote:

""Girls might feel the Garth Williams art is too old-fashioned," says Tara Weikum, executive editor for the "Little House" series. "We wanted to convey the fact that these are action-packed. There were dust storms and locusts. And they had to build a cabin from scratch." (The new tag line: "Little House, Big Adventure.")"

If the illustrations are too old-fashioned, then the stories are. But neither is true. The illustrations *MATCH* the stories. Is Tara Weikum genuinely so stupid that she thinks that only photographs will make the books look action-packed? I was angry enough some years ago when they changed the typeface of the Little House books to look harsher and less attractive. This makes me wanna hurl. Harper has been making money hand over fist for three quarters of a century with these books. They should be able to afford not to cater to the lowest possible taste that they can find.

Also in the article they mention releasing copies of Bridge to Terabithia with pictures from the upcoming movie. Bridge isn't my favorite book, but I saw the preview for the movie earlier this year and couldn't believe my eyes. It deserves better than the high-tech, overwrought, action-adventure treatment that the previews showed.

"Allison Edheimer, 9, wants the photo version of the "Little House" series. "I'd rather read something where I can picture the person," she says. Rachael Ross, 10, agrees: "I like seeing real people better than drawings," she says. "Drawings look sort of fake."" Little Allison's parents and teachers should maybe work on developing her imagination. If she can't picture the Little House characters from the stories and the illustrations, she's been watching way too much TV. and if little Rachel thinks that posed photographs with models are somehow more authentic than drawings, intelligence would appear to be an issue.

So, ladies, apparently the only way to attract readers to the Thief books is to slap a photograph on the cover. Probably of some vapid Hollywood-style pretty-boy.

Leslie, wistfully pondering granching

Comments

[peggy-2.livejournal.com]

The next set will probably have computer graphics. Or graphic comic style, with the enormous eyes.

I saw a 1-line blurb in the newspaper over the holidays about how a professor at an East Coast university is going to release a CD featuring every song mentioned in the Little House books. I think that would be very fun.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

That would be great! I have the Laura Ingalls Wilder Songbook, but since I don't read music it doesn't do me much good. (The Little House Cookbook, on the other hand, does a great deal of good, principally involving the Bird's Nest Pudding).

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

I've heard this complained about before. Not to mention another Garth Williams cover -- Charlotte's Web -- being replaced with a movie image. Aaugh! My own 9-year-old HATES movie covers, or even cover art that's too realistic-looking. So there is hope.

As to the lack of taste and intelligence in publishing -- well, obviously, since no one is yet publishing MOI!!!

Sorry, just having a Miss Piggy moment.

[jen94kp.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I always liked reading because I could make up the pictures in my mind. I remember telling a friend in middle school that reading was like watching movies only better. She didn't get it. I personally think it takes something away from the reading experience to have photo's of people on the cover.

[chocolatepot.livejournal.com]

Personally, I like neither movie covers (AUGH AUGH WTF did you do to Ella Enchanted??) nor Garth Williams. I think everything he drew looks somehow furry and wet. However, photo covers often such because the models nearly always look nothing like the characters and look completely modern due to hairstyles, clothing, or makeup. I think the pictures could be all right if they don't focus on people's faces.

Bridge to Terabithia ... how much do you want to bet that they don't go with the original ending?

[empmai.livejournal.com]

I never read books with movie art, because I always found books written to simply cash in on the movie franchise were poorly written crap. And then even if it was a movie originaly based on on a book, I never knew if it was the original book with a movie cover or the movie version (with a different ending, scenes, lines, char, etc). Like in the "Little Princess" book with the movie cover are they cousins still or is the movie ending?

The argument is that non-readers will pick up a movie cover version more likely than a art cover, and so thats a good thing because anything to get kids to read is a good thing. Except that since movie-cover books are crap, an even a non-bookworm knows crap when they see it, they're not liking to pick up another book to quickly after reading the movie cover drivel.

[sandtree.livejournal.com]

I still can't believe they're making a movie out of that.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

(AUGH AUGH WTF did you do to Ella Enchanted??)

I had the exact same reaction when I saw that. I agree completely--I HATE any book with the movie cover, because it's just extending the marketing ploys of the movies which usually have nothing to do with the book anyway, just took the premise and the title and slapped them on a totally different storyline (WHY?? Ella Enchanted, you had so much potential as a movie--CARY ELWES AND ERIC IDLE!!--if you hadn't tried to be the real Ella Enchanted! If you hadn't masqueraded under such a false claim, you would have been an adorable little film! It was one of the worse marketing decisions I've ever seen! Almost as bad as putting a n00b director in charge of such a horrible story as Eragon!! *sobs*).

...er, these things don't bother me anymore than is normal. I promise.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought the same thing about Ella Enchanted. They RUINED that book with that stupid movie. It was nothing like the book! My sister read Bridge to Terabithia, and when she saw the movie commercial, she was shocked by how stupid they made it look. She also thinks they will not stick with the original ending.

[empmai.livejournal.com]

Probably of some vapid Hollywood-style pretty-boy.

[empmai.livejournal.com]

Sorry on a laptop, the key pad pushed enter by mistake.

Probably of some vapid Hollywood-style pretty-boy.

Not even if Legolas the Awesomely Beautiful was on the cover would a photo cover by good. But then again, could it be worse then the original american thief cover?

[ferris-girl.livejournal.com]

I saw the preview for 'Bridge' as well. I was like, "Oh Bridge to Teribitha...no wait. This isn't it. This is some kind of fantasy kids thing that is so popular these days.

When I found out it was actually the book I remembered, I thought the directors and screen writers were on crack. This book took place in a small town and dealt with real human issues. Not dragons and walking trees.

This was a young adult novel that dealt with young adults on a level ground.

Seeing the preview made me ill.

But my philosophy is " the Book is always better than the movie."

[(Anonymous)]

I was thinking about going to see Bridge to Terabithia, but the mention of dragons and walking trees kind of put me off. I really liked the book, but the movie sounds awful.
Mariah

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

ferris_girl! Long time no see!

[adalanne.livejournal.com]

Now, you have to realize that it is not a publisher's job to go out and publish great works of literature with fantastic covers. Every editor hopes to do that, and occasionally will get the chance, but a publisher's job is to make money, which is why what they are doing is very smart, even if it is disgusting. Believe me, it doesn't matter how much money has made in the past; if there is a way to make more money, then they need to go for it. That's the only way they can have enough money to publish those new great works of literature with fantastic covers that they wish they could publish all the time but don't make as much money as, say, the latest celebrity-written children's book. And going for photos is a smart way of making that money.

Look at any study and you'll find that children watch more TV and play more video games than they read books, and so by giving children covers and "illustrations" that are more in-line with what they see the most, they will be more likely to actually give the book a second glance and possibly read it, which is only a positive.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

Kids are also eating more unhealthy foods than ever. The solution is not to disguise healthy food so it looks like junk, the solution is to teach them to appreciate good food.

Similarly, children can easily be drawn to good books without the vile abomination of "model" illustrations. For example, I know the minute a teacher starts reading a book to his class - they all stream into the library wanting that book, or one in the same series, or one by the same author. Parents can accomplish the same thing.

A publisher's job may be to make money, but that reminds me of the scene in Little Women where the Professor points out to Jo that just because people will buy poison it's no reason for her to be selling it. The way you describe it, "publisher" sounds an awful lot like "prostitute." If they'd quit printing some of the dreck that they do just to turn a quick buck, they'd sell more of the good books.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

A confession: I have never read Bridge to Terabithia.

Wait! I can explain!
In sixth grade I was unfortunately cursed with one of those librarians who is on the bridge of retiring and couldn't really care less about whether or not you actually check books out of the library. To this end, instead of reading us excerpts from books, or trying to introduce us to many books, she set up a reliable film projector (and don't get me wrong; I have many, many fond recollections of film projectors from elementary school library visits--heck, from elementary school in general) and ran filmstrips about books.

Unfortunately, these filmstrips were pretty much straight-up summaries with blurry and oddly-drawn illustrations for visual accompaniments. So several classic children's novels were spoiled for me. I don't remember all of them, but I do know Bridge to Teribithia was one of them, because the summary went on and on and SPOILERY ENDING then it was like oh and she died or whatever END SPOILERY STUFF and I said, "Wow, thanks for destroying any desire I might have had to read that book."

but dragons sound a bit out there.

Anyway, more on-topic:

First of all, my little sister hasn't even read the Little House books, which I think is a crime against humanity. (My mom, who currently works in the barnyard of a living history museum, is hoping to change this by luring her in with Farmer Boy, but I digress again.) One of the first things I did this school year was make a trip to Goodwill, with the intention of buying something for our jungle-themed dance that night. Instead, I came out with the yellow-cover Garth-Williams-illustrated versions of Farmer Boy and The First Four Years, which I think were newer than the versions I grew up with, but are still older than I am (1981 editions at the latest), because they looked so lonely on the shelf. They needed to come home with me.

Anyway, I'm digressing again, but the point of all this rambling is that I love the Little House books with a great deal of my heart (how many times did I read These Happy Golden Years, I wonder? Over and over and over again...and Plum Creek, in the mudhouse, I loved that one too), and I loved reading as a child, and that THIS ARTICLE BREAKS MY HEART IN SO MANY WAYS.

...*insert rant about losing faith in the children of tomorrow, and how my generation is the last combination of good ol' fashioned raising tempering technological prowress and how the world after we're gone is doomed*

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Okay, skip Terebithia. But "Jacob Have I Loved" by the same author is a must-read. A must-must-read. Gorgeous.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

I think this has upset me more than it should have.

*waves goodbye to another little piece of her childhood innocence*

[emmaco.livejournal.com]

Fuse 8 blog (http://fusenumber8.blogspot.com/2006/12/and-from-same-news-source.html#c2371720529129125854) recently talked about this issue and lots of people there were upset too. (I quote myself: "I agree with others that the covers aren't such a big deal but the interior pictures?! Not only are they wonderful but they help explain the story! The butter churning! The cheese making! This is madness!") The publisher wrote a comment saying that we should bear in mind that there are still two editions, the old one (illustrations and all) and the new one. So I guess that's not as bad as it could be.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

That is some small comfort.

I just went to the link and read it and (Leslie hyperventilates) - THEY'RE REDOING THE ILLUSTRATONS OF RAMONA THE PEST????? (I assume that's the Ramona they mean. It was bad enough when that delightfuly imp that Louis Darling drew was replaced on the jacket by Alan Tiegreen's far-inferior version, but... but... but...

I need my smelling salts.

[peggy-2.livejournal.com]

I would expect them to use actors/actresses along the lines of the American Girl plays and movies. Kirsten, for example. And Nellie like a blond and snotty Samantha, all dressed up and with beautiful ringlets. Something the kids can relate to, and not upset the mothers so much they refuse to buy the books for their beloved child.

For the record, I despised Jacob I have Loved. I thought the ending was one of the biggest literary disappointments I've come across.

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

What I often find annoying is that when people do historical photos or even illustrations, they don't look right. The Betsy-Tacy books by Maud Hart Lovelace were finally re-released a few years ago, to the delight of the Betsy-Tacy Society. Unfortunately, rather than using the Lenski and then Neville covers, they had some by Diane Goode that I refer to as the consumptive cadaver covers. That was bad enough, but then for Betsy and the Great World and Betsy's Wedding they had a more realistic style of drawing, but the people in them did *NOT* look like they were from 1914; they looked like modern people uncomfortably dressed in their great-grandparents' clothes.

Oh, thank goodness! Someone else who didn't like Jacob Have I Loved! It's been at least 10 years since I read it for the first and only time, and I had absolutely no sympathy for the main character, whatever her name was. It's one thing if you have a sister who really is spoiled and mean, but this sister was nice, and the main character was just whiny and annoying...

(Let's see if my feeble attempt at underlining titles worked...)

[haleysings.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm missing something here...don' get me wrong, I GREATLY prefer illustrations to photos for books (photos always look dated after a while, so I think it's not really a good idea--plus, when you think about how the current generation has embraced stuff like anime, it's silly to say that children don't like illustrations). But the cover, and even in the inside illustrations, are NOT going to make that much of a difference. the Little House series is a classic because of the text, not the illustrations. A lot of us liked The Thief even with the weird-o shadow-on-the-statue cover.

If they were saying that they would take the pictures as if it was in modern-day America, then I can see being upset. But this isn't THAT major of a change, is it?

[jyms.livejournal.com]

i don't really care about covers as long as they don't look weird or ugly. movie covers are okay but kind of makes me feel like i'm not reading the 'original' book. whether illustration or photos, i dislike having pictures of the people cause then i'll have a fixed impression of them. (although Gen-hair-in-a-ponytail cover never quite stuck in my head). though packaging may be important, it's the story that counts. if photos are going to attract kids to books, so be it. they'll have read the book, and they can always pick up the original one when they're older. never read bridge, now too busy with school to even read 'twenty years after'...;_;

[crazyviolin.livejournal.com]

I seem to be the only person here who hasn't read the Little House books. I've always been put off by, well, the storyline. Is it any good?

I too hate movie covers which is why I refuse to read my copy of the first three Series of Unfortunate Events (preferred the film, hate the books which I NEVER thought I'd say). But speaking of movies, has anybody seen Charlotte's Web? I don't know if I'll go and see it, partly because I'm worried it'll spoil my favourite childhood book and also because that spider is terrifying!!!! What if they change the covers and put the creepy spider on it!?

[crazyviolin.livejournal.com]

I seem to be the only person here who hasn't read the Little House books. I've always been put off by, well, the storyline. Are they any good?

I too don't like movie covers, which is why I haven't read my copy of the first three Series of Unfortunate Events (preferred the film actually, hate the books which I NEVER thought I'd say!). Speaking of movies, has anyone seen Charlotte's Web? I don't think I'll go myself, partly because I'm worried it'll spoil my favourite childhood book, but mainly because the spider looks terrifying!!!!!!! What if they put the creepy spider on the cover?!

Right, second post lucky.

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Actually, they're already offering a new Charlotte's Web cover, with the movie actress holding a pig, in exactly the same pose as the old Garth Williams cover. Sigh.

Actually I haven't read the Little House books either. Major major neglect on my part. I should try them now. I think I was put off when I was a kid because they were about girls. Didn't read Little Women until I was an adult for this reason. I was much more drawn to R.L. Stevenson, and boy adventures generally. Hey, I'm not saying this was sensible or fair of me, it was just the way I was. In denial about being female.

[crazyviolin.livejournal.com]

Ooooh, how strange. It's magically appeared.

if you dont want to see photos of models...

[dgfduck.livejournal.com]

then don't buy the book...